[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180403141718.GG3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 07:17:18 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.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()
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:52:33PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> 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.
Oooh... I had forgotten about spinlocks disappearing on UP systems,
good catch!
Suggestions for a fix? Clearly great care is required when using it
in things like WARN_ON()...
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists