On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 05:39:36PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 03:49:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > That certainly is one interesting function, isn't it? I wonder what
> > > happens if you
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 03:49:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > That certainly is one interesting function, isn't it? I wonder what
> > happens if you replace the raw_spin_is_locked() calls with an
> > unlock under a trylock chec
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> That certainly is one interesting function, isn't it? I wonder what
> happens if you replace the raw_spin_is_locked() calls with an
> unlock under a trylock check? ;-)
Deadlock due to interrupts again?
Didn't your spin_unlock_wait() p
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 06:13:38PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:40:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, and my next step is to look at spin_lock() followed by
> > > spin_is_locked(), not nece
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:40:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, and my next step is to look at spin_lock() followed by
> > spin_is_locked(), not necessarily the same lock.
>
> Hmm. Most (all?) "spin_is_locked()" really sh
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:40:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, and my next step is to look at spin_lock() followed by
> > spin_is_locked(), not necessarily the same lock.
>
> Hmm. Most (all?) "spin_is_locked()" really sh
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
>
> Agreed, and my next step is to look at spin_lock() followed by
> spin_is_locked(), not necessarily the same lock.
Hmm. Most (all?) "spin_is_locked()" really should be about the same
thread that took the lock (ie it's about asserts and lo
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 02:15:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:18:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > I also need to check all
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:18:40PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I also need to check all uses of spin_is_locked(). There might no
> > > longer be any that re
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:13:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:19:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > There is no agreed-upon d
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:38:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:19:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > > and it appears tha
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:19:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> > pair. This com
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01:16PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics,
> and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock
> pair. This commit therefore removes spin_unlock_wait() and related
> definitions fr
13 matches
Mail list logo
