[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy4QPFypce_N0jC-QjhTU9GKZ2i11HewKKOfo0hCHn7Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2017 15:49:42 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 08/26] locking: Remove spin_unlock_wait() generic definitions
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> That certainly is one interesting function, isn't it? I wonder what
> happens if you replace the raw_spin_is_locked() calls with an
> unlock under a trylock check? ;-)
Deadlock due to interrupts again?
Didn't your spin_unlock_wait() patches teach you anything? Checking
state is fundamentally different from taking the lock. Even a trylock.
I guess you could try with the irqsave versions. But no, we're not doing that.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists