Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > ... how about we simply nuke this statement: > > > > Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) && > > > - !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock)) > > > + !rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock)) > > > > and be done with the whole thing? > > I'm all for killing that. I'll happily send a patch once the dust > settles. > > It still isn't enough to rid of the rwlock_read_locked and > rwlock_write_locked usage in kernel/spinlock.c as those are needed for > the cpu_relax() calls so we have to decide on suitable names still...
Oh crap, you're right. There's not much we can do about that. I have a do-seven-things-at-once patch from Ingo here which touches all this stuff so cannot really go backwards or forwards. And your patch is a do-four-things-at-once patch. Can you split it up please? - 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/
