[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130527082948.GF2781@laptop>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:29:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
rob clark <robclark@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mutex: add support for wound/wait style locks, v3
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 06:49:04PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> - _slow functions can check whether all acquire locks have been
> released and whether the caller is indeed blocking on the contending
> lock. Not doing so could either result in needless spinning instead of
> blocking (when blocking on the wrong lock) or in deadlocks (when not
> dropping all acquired).
We could add ww_mutex_assert_context_empty() or somesuch so that
paranoid people have a means of expressing themselves :-)
--
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