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

From: Linus Torvalds <>
Date: 2005-01-21 04:48:47
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?

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 12:51:39 2005

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