* Peter Chubb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggest reversing the sense of the macros, and having > read_can_lock() and write_can_lock() > > Meaning: > read_can_lock() --- a read_lock() would have succeeded > write_can_lock() --- a write_lock() would have succeeded.
i solved the problem differently in my patch sent to lkml today: i introduced read_trylock_test()/etc. variants which mirror the semantics of the trylock primitives and solve the needs of the PREEMPT branch within kernel/spinlock.c. Ingo - 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/