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

From: Ingo Molnar <>
Date: 2005-01-21 03:20:40
* Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

> How about I just kill it now, so that it just doesn't exist, and the
> dust (from all the other things) can settle where it will?
> In fact, I think I will remove the whole "rwlock_is_locked()" thing
> and the only user, since it's all clearly broken, and regardless of
> what we do it will be something else. That will at least fix the
> current problem, and only leave us doing too many bus accesses when
> BKL_PREEMPT is enabled.

in the 5-patch stream i just sent there's no need to touch exit.c, and
the debugging check didnt hurt. But if you remove it from spinlock.h now
then i'll probably have to regenerate the 5 patches again :-| We can:

 - nuke it afterwards

 - or can leave it alone as-is (it did catch a couple of bugs in the past)

 - or can change the rwlock_is_locked() to !write_can_lock() and remove
   rwlock_is_locked() [!write_can_lock() is a perfect replacement for 

i'd prefer #3.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Thu Jan 20 11:26:47 2005

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