Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-12-04 Thread george anzinger
So what is a coder to do. We need to define the pi_mutex_trylock(). If I understand this thread, it should return 0 on success. Is this correct? George On Saturday 25 November 2000 22:05, Roger Larsson wrote: > On Saturday 25 November 2000 20:22, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 20

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-27 Thread Roger Larsson
On Saturday 25 November 2000 22:05, Roger Larsson wrote: > On Saturday 25 November 2000 20:22, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > > _trylock functions return 0 for success. > > > > > > Not spin_trylock > > > > Argh, I missed the (recent

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Roger Larsson
On Saturday 25 November 2000 20:22, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > _trylock functions return 0 for success. > > > > Not spin_trylock > > Argh, I missed the (recent ?) change to make x86 spinlocks use 1 to mean > unlocked. You're corre

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Philipp Rumpf
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Roger Larsson wrote: > > _trylock functions return 0 for success. > > Not spin_trylock Argh, I missed the (recent ?) change to make x86 spinlocks use 1 to mean unlocked. You're correct, and obviously this should be fixed. - To unsubscribe from this li

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Roger Larsson
On Saturday 25 November 2000 19:30, Philipp Rumpf wrote: > On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:49:25PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > Questions: > > > What are _trylocks supposed to return? > > > > It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > > > > > Does spi

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Roger Larsson
On Saturday 25 November 2000 18:49, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > Questions: > > What are _trylocks supposed to return? > > It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > > > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently? > > Why isn't the expected ret

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Philipp Rumpf
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:49:25PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > Questions: > > What are _trylocks supposed to return? > > It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > > > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently? > > Why isn't the e

Re: *_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > Questions: > What are _trylocks supposed to return? It depends on the type of _trylock ;( > Does spin_trylock and down_trylock behave differently? > Why isn't the expected return value documented? The whole trylock stuff is, IMHO, a big mess.

*_trylock return on success?

2000-11-25 Thread Roger Larsson
Hi, Background information: compiled and tested a test11 with the Montavista preemptive patch. After pressing Magic-SysRq-M all processes that tried to do IO hung in 'D' Last message "Buffer memory ..." Pressing Magic-SysRq-M again, all hung processes continued... Checking the patch it looks