Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1]

[Andrew Morton]

Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > ... how about we simply nuke this statement:
> >
> > Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >  	if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) &&
> > >  -				!rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock))
> > >  +				!rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock))
> >
> > and be done with the whole thing?
> 
> I'm all for killing that.  I'll happily send a patch once the dust
> settles.
> 
> It still isn't enough to rid of the rwlock_read_locked and
> rwlock_write_locked usage in kernel/spinlock.c as those are needed for
> the cpu_relax() calls so we have to decide on suitable names still...

Oh crap, you're right.  There's not much we can do about that.

I have a do-seven-things-at-once patch from Ingo here which touches all
this stuff so cannot really go backwards or forwards.

And your patch is a do-four-things-at-once patch.  Can you split it up please?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/