[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130129092849.GA6665@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:28:49 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: nan chen <nachenn@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mutex: use spin_[un]lock instead of
arch_spin_[un]lock
* nan chen <nachenn@...il.com> wrote:
> > #define spin_lock_mutex(lock, flags) \
> > do { \
> > struct mutex *l = container_of(lock, struct mutex,
> > wait_lock); \
> > \
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(in_interrupt()); \
> > local_irq_save(flags); \
> > arch_spin_lock(&(lock)->rlock.raw_lock);\
> > DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(l->magic != l); \
> > } while (0)
> >
> > The original question was why mutex-debug.h (unmodified) uses
> > irq disabling.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ingo
> >
>
> So, the reason why you use WARN_ON here is try to keep things
> going?
What would be the alternative?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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