[PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP

Linus Torvalds torvalds at linux-foundation.org
Wed Aug 19 12:40:16 EST 2009

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I agree its a little too easy to abuse spin_is_locked.  However we should be
> consistent between spin_is_locked on UP between with and without

No we shouldn't.

With CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK, you have an actual lock variable for debugging 
purposes, so spin_is_locked() can clearly return a _valid_ answer, and 
should do so.

Without DEBUG_SPINLOCK, there isn't any answer to return.

So there's no way we can or should be consistent. In one case an answer 
exists, in another one the answer is meaningless and doesn't exist.

> How much of this do we want to try and address in .31?

Absolutely nothing.

> The PPC test really should be using assert_spin_locked and I'll send a patch
> to Ben for that.

Yes, that's the correct fix.


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list