Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 3 Apr 2018 09:11:34 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] locking: Document the semantics of spin_is_locked() |
| |
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:03:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 04:43:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 07:17:18AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > Suggestions for a fix? Clearly great care is required when using it > > > in things like WARN_ON()... > > > > Yeah, don't use it there, use lockdep_assert_held(). > > Good point, -ETOOEARLY. ;-) > > > As I stated before in this thread, ideally we'd make *_is_locked() go > > away entirely. > > After being reminded of the issues on UP systems, I now have much more > sympathy for that view...
And so the main remaining use case is debug prints on !PROVE_LOCKING builds. Which need some thought about the UP case.
Or am I missing something here?
Thanx, Paul
|  |