On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:12:48AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Huang Ying wrote:
> >>
> >> -	xchg(&kexec_lock, 0);
> >> +	locked = xchg(&kexec_lock, 0);
> >> +	BUG_ON(!locked);
> >
> > Why do you want to do this at all? 
> >
> > And why do you implement your locks with xchg() in the first place? That's 
> > total and utter crap.
> >
> > Hint: we have _real_ locking primitives in the kernel.
> 
> This part certainly.
> 
> The way the code should work, and the way it has in the past is:
> image = xchg(&kexec_image, NULL)
> if (!image)
>    return -EINVAL;
> 
> Very simple and very obvious and very easy to get right, and it has
> been that way for years.
> 

Hi Eric,

Are there any issues with usage of test_and_set_bit() or usage of spinlock
primitives?

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/