Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:28:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:28:13 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:47886 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:28:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:31:40 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@duckman.distro.conectiva To: Jesse Barnes Cc: Jens Axboe , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.30 In-Reply-To: <20020808170824.GA29468@sgi.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.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: 1009 Lines: 31 On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 08:00:45AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > For MUST_NOT_HOLD to work, you need to take into account which processor > > took the lock etc. [snip] > Agreed. I'll post another patch that doesn't mess with the scsi > stuff. Maybe later I can put together a useful > 'lock-not-held-on-this-cpu' macro. You don't need to put this in a macro. This test is valid for ALL spinlocks in the kernel and can be done from inside the spin_lock() macro itself, when spinlock debugging is on. regards, Rik -- http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/ "You're one of those condescending OLS attendants" "Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt" http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/