This should fix it. There really no correct way to define
spin_is_locked() on uniprocessors, either would be correct
depending upon the circumstances.
Eventually I'd like to add spin_assert_held() to the spinlock
headers, but for now this is OK as the bug traps have served
their purpose already.
--- vanilla/linux/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c Thu Feb 10 12:16:38 2000
+++ linux/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c Fri Feb 11 19:10:24 2000
@@ -64,7 +64,6 @@
static inline void
svc_serv_enqueue(struct svc_serv *serv, struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
{
- BUG_TRAP(spin_is_locked(&serv->sv_lock));
rpc_append_list(&serv->sv_threads, rqstp);
}
@@ -74,7 +73,6 @@
static inline void
svc_serv_dequeue(struct svc_serv *serv, struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
{
- BUG_TRAP(spin_is_locked(&serv->sv_lock));
rpc_remove_list(&serv->sv_threads, rqstp);
}
@@ -106,8 +104,6 @@
struct svc_serv *serv = svsk->sk_server;
struct svc_rqst *rqstp;
- BUG_TRAP(spin_is_locked(&svsk->sk_lock));
-
/* NOTE: Local BH is already disabled by our caller. */
spin_lock(&serv->sv_lock);
@@ -155,8 +151,6 @@
svc_sock_dequeue(struct svc_serv *serv)
{
struct svc_sock *svsk;
-
- BUG_TRAP(spin_is_locked(&serv->sv_lock));
if ((svsk = serv->sv_sockets) != NULL)
rpc_remove_list(&serv->sv_sockets, svsk);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:21 EST