[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181618420.3158@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for
UP
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> For some reason __raw_spin_is_locked() has been returning false for the
> uni-processor, non-CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK. The UP + CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> handles this correctly.
>
> Found this by enabling CONFIG_DEBUG_VM on PPC and hitting always hitting
> a BUG_ON that was testing to make sure the pte_lock was held.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
> ---
>
> Linus, a fix for 2.6.31
This really isn't all that clear.
The thing is, some people may assert that a lock is held, but others could
easily be looping until it's not held using something like
while (spin_is_locked(lock))
cpu_relax();
so it's hard to tell whether it should return true or false in the case
where spin-locking simply doesn't exist.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists