Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 16:47:39 +0100
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>, Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, SElinux list <selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <CAFqZXNt0Xp1j7+hTrV9XZ936Yz+H8Le0pqazhLr3drO0tEzB2w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFqZXNt0Xp1j7+hTrV9XZ936Yz+H8Le0pqazhLr3drO0tEzB2w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 04:15:27PM +0100, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> Also, any opinions on the name of the new helper? Perhaps
> mutex_is_held()? Or mutex_is_locked_by_current()?

lockdep_assert_held*() and friends work on mutexes just fine.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
  - From: Ondrej Mosnacek

References:
- Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
  - From: Ondrej Mosnacek

Prev by Date: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] SELinux: Always allow FIOCLEX and FIONCLEX
Previous by thread: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
Next by thread: Re: Semantics vs. usage of mutex_is_locked()
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Selinux Refpolicy] [Linux SGX] [Fedora Users] [Fedora Desktop] [Yosemite Photos] [Yosemite Camping] [Yosemite Campsites] [KDE Users] [Gnome Users]

Powered by Linux