Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:32:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:32:21 -0400 Received: from zok.SGI.COM ([204.94.215.101]:9170 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:32:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:35:51 -0700 From: Jesse Barnes To: Rik van Riel Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmacd@namesys.com, phillips@arcor.de, rml@tech9.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.30 Message-ID: <20020808173550.GA29604@sgi.com> Mail-Followup-To: Rik van Riel , Jens Axboe , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmacd@namesys.com, phillips@arcor.de, rml@tech9.net References: <20020808170824.GA29468@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 922 Lines: 21 On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 02:31:40PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > 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. Right, right after I posted I regretted using that term. Of course it would have to include changes to spinlock_t and spin_lock/unlock. Seems like it could be integrated somewhat easily with the lock ordering stuff that was talked about earlier too. Thanks, Jesse - 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/