Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:39:15AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
>>Grant Grundler writes:
>>
>>
>>>I would argue it more obvious. People looking at the code
>>>are immediately going to realize it was a deliberate choice to
>>>not use a spinlock.
>>
>>It achieves exactly the same effect as spin_lock/spin_unlock, just
>>more verbosely. :)
> 
> 
> Not exactly identical. spin_try_lock() doesn't attempt to acquire
> the lock and thus force exclusive access to the cacheline.
> Other than that, I agree with you.
> 
> I don't see a problem with being verbose here since putting
> a spinlock around something that's already atomic (assignment)
> even caught Andrew's attention.

I reverted the patch to use a spinlock and added a comment. How
does this look?


-- 
Brian King
eServer Storage I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center