[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180405085620.GA6079@andrea>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 10:56:21 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@...rulasolutions.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: David Howells <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()
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:47:49AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Can't we just kill off spin_is_locked? It seems pretty much all uses
> should simply be replaced with lockdep annotations, and there aren't
> many to start with.
Yeah, this is not the first time such a question has been raised ;) In fact,
some people (see, e.g., Peter's comment in this thread) have also suggested
extending it to {mutex,rwsem,bit_spin}_is_locked (the number of uses would
then increase to a few hundreds, and lockdep would need some extensions...).
Of course, removing the docbook headers should not cause particular trouble,
once/if the removal of these primitives will be realized... ;)
Andrea
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists