Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 Nov 2007 15:29:33 +0100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/4] spinlock: lockbreak cleanup |
| |
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. Anyway. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |