On Friday 26 July 2002 19:54, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 10:42:58AM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 04:09:18PM +0400, Joshua MacDonald wrote:
> > > In reiser4 we are looking forward to having a MUST_NOT_HOLD (i.e.,
> > > spin_is_not_locked) assertion for kernel spinlocks. Do you know if any
> > > progress has been made in that direction?
> >
> > Well, I had that in one version of the patch, but people didn't think
> > it would be useful. Maybe you'd like to check out Oliver's comments
> > at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102644431806734&w=2
> > and respond? If there's demand for MUST_NOT_HOLD, I'd be happy to add
> > it since it should be easy. But if you're using it to enforce lock
> > ordering as Oliver suggests, then there are probably more robust
> > solutions.
>
> Why don't you just generalize the scsi version that already support this?
>
> reinventing the wheel everywhere..
The scsi version is stupid. It panics instead of oopses and it takes two
parameters.
More like improving a wheel, having observed that it works better if its
round.
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:26 EST