Re: [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> You are right about UP, and the patch below adds the UP variants. It's
> analogous to the existing wrapping concept that UP 'spinlocks' are
> always unlocked on UP. (spin_can_lock() is already properly defined on
> UP too.)

Looking closer, it _looks_ like the spinlock debug case never had a 
"spin_is_locked()" define at all. Or am I blind? Maybe UP doesn't 
want/need it after all?

		Linus
-
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/