Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262184AbVATQIP (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:08:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262169AbVATQGl (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:06:41 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:22976 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262179AbVATQFi (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:05:38 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:05:33 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Chris Wedgwood cc: Andrew Morton , paulus@samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, peterc@gelato.unsw.edu.au, tony.luck@intel.com, dsw@gelato.unsw.edu.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, wli@holomorphy.com, jbarnes@sgi.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] 'spinlock/rwlock fixes' V3 [1/1] In-Reply-To: <20050120031854.GA8538@taniwha.stupidest.org> Message-ID: References: <20050116230922.7274f9a2.akpm@osdl.org> <20050117143301.GA10341@elte.hu> <20050118014752.GA14709@cse.unsw.EDU.AU> <16877.42598.336096.561224@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20050119080403.GB29037@elte.hu> <16878.9678.73202.771962@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> <20050119092013.GA2045@elte.hu> <16878.54402.344079.528038@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20050120023445.GA3475@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20050119190104.71f0a76f.akpm@osdl.org> <20050120031854.GA8538@taniwha.stupidest.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1169 Lines: 33 On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > ... how about we simply nuke this statement: > > > > Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > > > > > if (!spin_is_locked(&p->sighand->siglock) && > > > - !rwlock_is_locked(&tasklist_lock)) > > > + !rwlock_write_locked(&tasklist_lock)) > > > > and be done with the whole thing? > > I'm all for killing that. I'll happily send a patch once the dust > settles. How about I just kill it now, so that it just doesn't exist, and the dust (from all the other things) can settle where it will? In fact, I think I will remove the whole "rwlock_is_locked()" thing and the only user, since it's all clearly broken, and regardless of what we do it will be something else. That will at least fix the current problem, and only leave us doing too many bus accesses when BKL_PREEMPT is enabled. Linus - 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/