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

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo_at_elte.hu>
Date: 2005-01-21 00:04:01
* Peter Chubb <peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au> wrote:

> I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having
> read_can_lock() and write_can_lock()
> 
> Meaning:
> 	read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded
> 	write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded.

i solved the problem differently in my patch sent to lkml today: i
introduced read_trylock_test()/etc. variants which mirror the semantics
of the trylock primitives and solve the needs of the PREEMPT branch
within kernel/spinlock.c.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Jan 20 08:05:34 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:34 EST