From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: Hirokazu Takata <takata@linux-m32r.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m32r: Revise __raw_read_trylock()
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 05:27:08 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060922112708.GR2585@parisc-linux.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060922074813.GA20921@localhost.Internal.Linux-SH.ORG>
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 04:48:13PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> This might be a stupid question, but why exactly are we ripping out
> generic__raw_read_trylock() if architectures are going to implement a
> generic implementation anyways, rather than just changing it to match
> the proper semantics?
Because there is no generic definition of struct spinlock.
> int __lockfunc generic__raw_read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
> {
> - __raw_read_lock(lock);
> - return 1;
> + atomic_t *count = (atomic_t *)lock;
> + atomic_dec(count);
> + if (atomic_read(count) >= 0)
> + return 1;
> + atomic_inc(count);
> + return 0;
> }
You're assuming:
- a spinlock is an atomic_t.
- Said atomic_t uses RW_LOCK_BIAS to indicate locked/unlocked.
This is true for m32r, but not for sparc. SuperH looks completely
broken -- I don't see how holding a read lock prevents someone else from
getting a write lock. The SH write_trylock uses RW_LOCK_BIAS, but
write_lock doesn't. Are there any SMP SH machines?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-22 11:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-22 6:29 [PATCH] m32r: Revise __raw_read_trylock() Hirokazu Takata
2006-09-22 7:48 ` Paul Mundt
2006-09-22 11:27 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2006-09-25 6:09 ` Paul Mundt
2006-09-24 6:20 ` Matthew Wilcox
2006-09-25 7:47 ` Hirokazu Takata
2006-09-26 21:33 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-26 22:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060922112708.GR2585@parisc-linux.org \
--to=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=takata@linux-m32r.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.