On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:40:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > > I agree its a little too easy to abuse spin_is_locked. However we should be > > consistent between spin_is_locked on UP between with and without > > CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK enabled. > > No we shouldn't. > > With CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK, you have an actual lock variable for debugging > purposes, so spin_is_locked() can clearly return a _valid_ answer, and > should do so. > > Without DEBUG_SPINLOCK, there isn't any answer to return. > > So there's no way we can or should be consistent. In one case an answer > exists, in another one the answer is meaningless and doesn't exist.
I always thought behaviour should be consistent between code with debugging on and code without. Otherwise you may end up with cases of "it starts working when I turn on debugging" which are a pain to fix. Has something changed? Or in other words, do you think lockdep should try solving deadlocks instead of just reporting them for instance? OG. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
