* Hugh Dickins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -187,6 +187,8 @@ void __lockfunc _##op##_lock(locktype##_
> cpu_relax(); \
> preempt_disable(); \
> } \
> + if ((lock)->break_lock) \
> + (lock)->break_lock = 0; \
while writing the ->break_lock feature i intentionally avoided overhead
in the spinlock fastpath. A better solution for the bug you noticed is
to clear the break_lock flag in places that use need_lock_break()
explicitly.
One robust way for that seems to be to make the need_lock_break() macro
clear the flag if it sees it set, and to make all the other (internal)
users use __need_lock_break() that doesnt clear the flag. I'll cook up a
patch for this.
Ingo
-
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/
