* Ryan Mallon <rmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/13 01:12, David Howells wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> We do *not* want to add some crazy "spin_is_nt_locked". We just want
> >> to get rid of these idiotic debug tests.
> >
> > Generally, I think you are right, though there are also some checks in
> > deallocation routines that check that a spinlock is not currently held
> > before
> > releasing the memory holding it - should those be allowed to stay? I'd be
> > tempted to wrap the whole check in something, perhaps an
> > "spin_lock_uninit()"
> > and move the check to a header file. Would this be useful for lockdep or
> > anything like that?
>
> lockdep has lockdep_assert_held(), which might be what you want. Though
> it looks like it possibly also has the false positive issues on SMP?
There should be no false positive race in the case that matters: if you
are expecting to always hold the lock at that point, and want to make sure
(if lock debugging is enabled), that it's truly held.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
