Re: [Patch v4] rwsem: fix rwsem_is_locked() bugs

[Cong Wang]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:23:53 -0400
> Amerigo Wang <amwang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > --- a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
> > @@ -71,7 +71,13 @@ extern void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> >  
> >  static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> >  {
> > -	return (sem->activity != 0);
> > +	int ret = 1;
> > +
> > +	if (spin_trylock_irq(&sem->wait_lock)) {
> > +		ret = (sem->activity != 0);
> > +		spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
> > +	}
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
>
> a) probably to large to be inlined


Yeah, maybe, I forgot spin_trylock_irq() and spin_unlock_irq
are macros.

> b) the function will now cause bugs if called under
>    local_irq_disable().  That wasn't the case before.  Fixable via
>    spin_lock_irqsave().
>
> In the present kernel there don't appear to be any irqs-off callers. 
> There may of course be some out-of-tree ones which will get bitten by
> this semantic change.
>
> If we decide to leave this new rule in place then we should add a
> WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) to prevent hitting people with a nasty, subtle
> bug.
>
> Methinks that _irqsave() is better.


My bad, I misunderstood spin_lock_irqsave(), thus used spin_lock_irq().
:( Will update the patch now.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/