From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:20:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] Message-Id: <20050120162040.GA14002@elte.hu> List-Id: References: <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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Chris Wedgwood , Andrew Morton , paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au, tony.luck@intel.com, dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com * 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 it]. i'd prefer #3. Ingo