[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180403150356.GJ3948@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 08:03:56 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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 04:43:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:17:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Suggestions for a fix? Clearly great care is required when using it
> > in things like WARN_ON()...
>
> Yeah, don't use it there, use lockdep_assert_held().
Good point, -ETOOEARLY. ;-)
> As I stated before in this thread, ideally we'd make *_is_locked() go
> away entirely.
After being reminded of the issues on UP systems, I now have much more
sympathy for that view...
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists