Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755431AbXK1EhU (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:37:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753351AbXK1EhE (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:37:04 -0500 Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net ([204.127.131.117]:51051 "EHLO mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753195AbXK1EhB (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:37:01 -0500 Message-ID: <474CF06C.8020208@lwfinger.net> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:37:00 -0600 From: Larry Finger User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: LKML Subject: Question regarding mutex locking Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 465 Lines: 18 If a particular routine needs to lock a mutex, but it may be entered with that mutex already locked, would the following code be SMP safe? hold_lock = mutex_trylock() ... if (hold_lock) mutex_unlock() Thanks, Larry - 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/