[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29562.1522759749@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 13:49:09 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Jade Alglave <j.alglave@....ac.uk>,
Luc Maranget <luc.maranget@...ia.fr>,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked()
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com> wrote:
> +/**
> + * spin_is_locked() - Check whether a spinlock is locked.
> + * @lock: Pointer to the spinlock.
> + *
> + * This function is NOT required to provide any memory ordering
> + * guarantees; it could be used for debugging purposes or, when
> + * additional synchronization is needed, accompanied with other
> + * constructs (memory barriers) enforcing the synchronization.
> + *
> + * Return: 1, if @lock is (found to be) locked; 0, otherwise.
It's more complicated than that. This function is dangerous and should be
used with extreme care. In the case where CONFIG_SMP=n the value is locked
one way or the other and it might be the wrong way.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists