[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090819115301.563be6da@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:53:01 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, dhowells@...hat.com,
Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux-Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: spin_is_locked() broken for uniprocessor?
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:38:06 +0100
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > > which implies to me that spin_is_locked() will always return false. Is this
> > > expected behavior.
> >
> > That's wrong. spin_is_locked should always return true on UP.
>
> Surely it's not that simple? Maybe spin_is_lock() should be undefined on UP.
That would lead to a lot of
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
#endif
in drivers because there is driver code that uses spin_is_locked() in
fairly sensible fashion when dealing with locking.
--
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