On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - * in interrupt context :)
> > + * Return true if we acquired the lock
> >   */
> > -static int kexec_lock;
> > +static inline bool kexec_trylock(void)
> > +{
> > +	return !test_and_set_bit(0, &kexec_bitlock);
> 
> Nope. That needs to be an "unsigned long".

It is.

quoted text
> But more importantl, why not just make it a lock in the first place?
> 
> 	static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(kexec_lock);
> 
> 	#define kexec_trylock() spin_trylock(&kexec_lock)
> 	#define kexec_unlock() spin_unlock(&kexec_lock)
> 
> and then you get it all right and clear and obvious.

Used a bitop to preserve the runtime checking in there.  spin_unlock()
doesn't return the previous lockedness.

Presumably lockdep will whine about spun_unlock(unlocked_lock) though.

quoted text
> Yeah, and I didn't check whether there is anything that is supposed to be 
> able to sleep. If there is, use a mutex instead of a spinlock, of course.

Yes, it does sleepy things inside the lock.


A bitop seems a better fit to me.  We never spin on that lock (it
always uses test_and_set), so why use a "spin"lock?
--
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/