From: Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@norran.net>
To: Philipp Rumpf <prumpf@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: *_trylock return on success?
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 20:03:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00112520034902.01122@dox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00112516072500.01122@dox> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011251547210.8818-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> <20001125183036.Q2272@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20001125183036.Q2272@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
On Saturday 25 November 2000 19:30, Philipp Rumpf wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:49:25PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote:
> > > Questions:
> > > What are _trylocks supposed to return?
> >
> > It depends on the type of _trylock ;(
> >
> > > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently?
> > > Why isn't the expected return value documented?
> >
> > The whole trylock stuff is, IMHO, a big mess. When you
> > change from one type of trylock to another, you may be
> > forced to invert the logic of your code since the return
> > code from the different locks is different.
> >
> > For bitflags, for example, the trylock returns the state
> > the bit had before the lock (ie. 1 if the thing was already
> > locked).
>
> I assume you're talking about test_and_{set,clear}_bit here. Their return
> value isn't consistent with the other _trylock functions since they're not
> _trylock functions.
>
> I think the real problem is that people use test_and_set_bit for locks,
> which is almost never[1] a good idea. The overhead for a semaphore
> shouldn't be too much in most cases, and that way it is obvious what you
> want to do - and, hopefully, even more obvious if you end up with a
> semaphore that can be turned into a spinlock without further changes.
>
> > For spinlocks, it'll probably return something else ;/
>
> _trylock functions return 0 for success.
Not spin_trylock
Simple example code from
code from include/asm-mips/spinlock.h:65
#define spin_trylock(lock) (!test_and_set_bit(0,(lock)))
/RogerL
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-25 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-25 15:07 *_trylock return on success? Roger Larsson
2000-11-25 17:49 ` Rik van Riel
2000-11-25 18:30 ` Philipp Rumpf
2000-11-25 19:03 ` Roger Larsson [this message]
2000-11-25 19:22 ` Philipp Rumpf
2000-11-25 21:05 ` Roger Larsson
2000-11-28 1:07 ` Roger Larsson
2000-11-25 18:58 ` Roger Larsson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-12-04 19:46 george anzinger
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=00112520034902.01122@dox \
--to=roger.larsson@norran.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prumpf@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox