Re: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock()

2016-06-06 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:54:02AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: ... it has no users and we already have the the regular spin_is_lock() call anyway -- although iirc this was going to be different than the simple negation for lock elision implementation

Re: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock()

2016-06-01 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:54:02AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > ... it has no users and we already have the the regular spin_is_lock() > call anyway -- although iirc this was going to be different > than the simple negation for lock elision implementations. Lets drop it. What about {read,write}

Re: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock()

2016-05-24 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:54:02AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > ... it has no users and we already have the the regular spin_is_lock() > call anyway -- although iirc this was going to be different > than the simple negation for lock elision implementations. Lets drop it. > > Signed-off-by: Davi

[PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock()

2016-05-23 Thread Davidlohr Bueso
... it has no users and we already have the the regular spin_is_lock() call anyway -- although iirc this was going to be different than the simple negation for lock elision implementations. Lets drop it. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso --- include/linux/spinlock.h | 11 --- 1 file changed