On 24/05/13 01:12, David Howells wrote: > Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We do *not* want to add some crazy "spin_is_nt_locked". We just want >> to get rid of these idiotic debug tests. > > Generally, I think you are right, though there are also some checks in > deallocation routines that check that a spinlock is not currently held before > releasing the memory holding it - should those be allowed to stay? I'd be > tempted to wrap the whole check in something, perhaps an "spin_lock_uninit()" > and move the check to a header file. Would this be useful for lockdep or > anything like that?
lockdep has lockdep_assert_held(), which might be what you want. Though it looks like it possibly also has the false positive issues on SMP? ~Ryan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
