Re: [patch 1/4] spinlock: lockbreak cleanup

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:02 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Rename need_lockbreak to spin_needbreak, make it use spin_is_contended to
> > decouple it from the spinlock implementation, and make it typesafe (rwlocks
> > do not have any need_lockbreak sites -- why do they even get bloated up
> > with that break_lock then?).
> IIRC Lee has a few patches floating about that do introduce lockbreak
> stuff for rwlocks.

Well that would be a good reason to introduce a break_lock for them,
but previously not so much... we have rwlocks in some slightly space
critical structures (vmas, inodes, etc).

I guess it was done to make the "template" hacks eaiser. I don't really
find that in good taste, especially for important core infrastructure.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux