On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:06:05PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 15:02 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > Rename need_lockbreak to spin_needbreak, make it use spin_is_contended to
> > decouple it from the spinlock implementation, and make it typesafe (rwlocks
> > do not have any need_lockbreak sites -- why do they even get bloated up
> > with that break_lock then?).
> 
> IIRC Lee has a few patches floating about that do introduce lockbreak
> stuff for rwlocks.

Well that would be a good reason to introduce a break_lock for them,
but previously not so much... we have rwlocks in some slightly space
critical structures (vmas, inodes, etc).

I guess it was done to make the "template" hacks eaiser. I don't really
find that in good taste, especially for important core infrastructure.
Anyway.
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/