From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:33:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Message-Id: <20050119193358.6b8729db.akpm@osdl.org> List-Id: References: <20050116230922.7274f9a2.akpm@osdl.org> <20050117143301.GA10341@elte.hu> <20050118014752.GA14709@cse.unsw.EDU.AU> <16877.42598.336096.561224@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20050119080403.GB29037@elte.hu> <16878.9678.73202.771962@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20050119092013.GA2045@elte.hu> <16878.54402.344079.528038@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050120023445.GA3475@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20050119190104.71f0a76f.akpm@osdl.org> <20050120031854.GA8538@taniwha.stupidest.org> In-Reply-To: <20050120031854.GA8538@taniwha.stupidest.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Chris Wedgwood Cc: paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au, tony.luck@intel.com, dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, torvalds@osdl.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > ... how about we simply nuke this statement: > > > > Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > > > > if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) && > > > - !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock)) > > > + !rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock)) > > > > and be done with the whole thing? > > I'm all for killing that. I'll happily send a patch once the dust > settles. > > It still isn't enough to rid of the rwlock_read_locked and > rwlock_write_locked usage in kernel/spinlock.c as those are needed for > the cpu_relax() calls so we have to decide on suitable names still... Oh crap, you're right. There's not much we can do about that. I have a do-seven-things-at-once patch from Ingo here which touches all this stuff so cannot really go backwards or forwards. And your patch is a do-four-things-at-once patch. Can you split it up please?