On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> 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.
How about I just kill it now, so that it just doesn't exist, and the dust
(from all the other things) can settle where it will?
In fact, I think I will remove the whole "rwlock_is_locked()" thing and
the only user, since it's all clearly broken, and regardless of what we do
it will be something else. That will at least fix the current problem, and
only leave us doing too many bus accesses when BKL_PREEMPT is enabled.
Linus
-
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/
