On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 07:01:04PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > ... how about we simply nuke this statement: > > Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. It still isn't enough to rid of the rwlock_read_locked and rwlock_write_locked usage in kernel/spinlock.c as those are needed for the cpu_relax() calls so we have to decide on suitable names still... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
