On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Jan Beulich <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 24.03.16 at 16:55, <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 24/03/16 11:30, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Recursive locks know their current owner, and since we use the function >>> solely to determine whether a particular lock is being held by the >>> current CPU (which so far has been an imprecise check), make actually >>> check the owner for recusrively acquired locks. >> >> What's the expected behaviour of _spin_is_locked() if the lock is held >> by another CPU? >> >> Before it may return true if it is held by another CPU, now it will >> always return false in this case. > > Correct - hence the reference to this only being used for a limited > set of cases (read: ASSERT()s and alike).
A bunch of the mm locks add "_by_me" at the end of the function. Did spin_is_locked() used to have that as well? In any case I suppose "spin_is_locked_by_someone()" is really pretty useless information. -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
