[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13191.1522763553@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 14:52:33 +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:
> > 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.
>
> You mean "unlocked"? (aka, return 0)
No, I mean "fixed", sorry. We've had problems stemming from this before on UP
systems.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists