Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:07:15 +0200 | From | Andrea Parri <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked() |
| |
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 02:52:33PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Andrea Parri <andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com> wrote: > > > > It's more complicated than that. This function is dangerous and should be > > > used with extreme care. In the case where CONFIG_SMP=n the value is locked > > > one way or the other and it might be the wrong way. > > > > You mean "unlocked"? (aka, return 0) > > No, I mean "fixed", sorry. We've had problems stemming from this before on UP > systems.
Sorry, but I don't understand your objection: are you suggesting to add something like "Always return 0 on !SMP" to the comment? what else?
Andrea
> > David
|  |