On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:00:51AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> > also a step towards
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:00:51AM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> > lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> > since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> > also a step towards
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:38:47PM -0700, Lance Roy wrote:
> lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
> since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
> also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
>
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Borislav
lockdep_assert_held() is better suited to checking locking requirements,
since it won't get confused when someone else holds the lock. This is
also a step towards possibly removing spin_is_locked().
Signed-off-by: Lance Roy
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Borislav
6 matches
Mail list logo