On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 04:48:13PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> This might be a stupid question, but why exactly are we ripping out
> generic__raw_read_trylock() if architectures are going to implement a
> generic implementation anyways, rather than just changing it to match
> the proper semantics?
Because there is no generic definition of struct spinlock.
> int __lockfunc generic__raw_read_trylock(raw_rwlock_t *lock)
> {
> - __raw_read_lock(lock);
> - return 1;
> + atomic_t *count = (atomic_t *)lock;
> + atomic_dec(count);
> + if (atomic_read(count) >= 0)
> + return 1;
> + atomic_inc(count);
> + return 0;
> }
You're assuming:
- a spinlock is an atomic_t.
- Said atomic_t uses RW_LOCK_BIAS to indicate locked/unlocked.
This is true for m32r, but not for sparc. SuperH looks completely
broken -- I don't see how holding a read lock prevents someone else from
getting a write lock. The SH write_trylock uses RW_LOCK_BIAS, but
write_lock doesn't. Are there any SMP SH machines?
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
