Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We do *not* want to add some crazy "spin_is_nt_locked". We just want > to get rid of these idiotic debug tests. Generally, I think you are right, though there are also some checks in deallocation routines that check that a spinlock is not currently held before releasing the memory holding it - should those be allowed to stay? I'd be tempted to wrap the whole check in something, perhaps an "spin_lock_uninit()" and move the check to a header file. Would this be useful for lockdep or anything like that? David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
