On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:59:05AM -0300, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 08/12/20(Tue) 14:39, Visa Hankala wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 03:25:00PM -0300, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > Simple diff below to add the rw_lock_held() as well as a read & write
> > > version.
> > >
> > > This allows us
On 08/12/20(Tue) 14:39, Visa Hankala wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 03:25:00PM -0300, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Simple diff below to add the rw_lock_held() as well as a read & write
> > version.
> >
> > This allows us to reduce the difference with NetBSD in UVM by adding the
> > following
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 03:25:00PM -0300, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Simple diff below to add the rw_lock_held() as well as a read & write
> version.
>
> This allows us to reduce the difference with NetBSD in UVM by adding the
> following checks:
>
> KASSERT(rw_write_held(amap->am_lock));
>
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:18:04PM +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 12:22:22PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Alexandr Nedvedicky <
> > alexandr.nedvedi...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What's the plan for rw_write_held()? Currently
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 12:22:22PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Alexandr Nedvedicky <
> alexandr.nedvedi...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > What's the plan for rw_write_held()? Currently macro is true, if whoever
> > holds
> > the lock.
> >
> > >
> > > +#define
On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 11:16 AM Alexandr Nedvedicky <
alexandr.nedvedi...@oracle.com> wrote:
> What's the plan for rw_write_held()? Currently macro is true, if whoever
> holds
> the lock.
>
> >
> > +#define rw_write_held(rwl) (rw_status(rwl) == RW_WRITE)
>
Nope. rw_status() returns
Hello,
What's the plan for rw_write_held()? Currently macro is true, if whoever holds
the lock.
>
> +#define rw_write_held(rwl) (rw_status(rwl) == RW_WRITE)
I would expect something like instead:
#define rw_write_held(rwl) (RWLOCK_OWNER(rwl) == curproc)
That's all fine, until someone uses this not for KASSERT, but as part of
their logic.
while(!rw_read_held(lock)) {
do something;
}
I think this kind of thing fleads to people building "try" APIs.
Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Simple diff below to add the
Simple diff below to add the rw_lock_held() as well as a read & write
version.
This allows us to reduce the difference with NetBSD in UVM by adding the
following checks:
KASSERT(rw_write_held(amap->am_lock));
ok?
Index: sys/rwlock.h
