From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:48:47 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] spinlock fix #1, *_can_lock() primitives Message-Id: List-Id: References: <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> <16879.29449.734172.893834@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20050120160839.GA13067@elte.hu> <20050120164038.GA15874@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20050120164038.GA15874@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Chubb , Chris Wedgwood , Andrew Morton , paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 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 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? Linus