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