* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 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 it]. i'd prefer #3. 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.htmlReceived on Thu Jan 20 11:26:47 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:34 EST