From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <galibert@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org",
	Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK))
	by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44ACAB708C
	for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>;
	Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:40:26 +1000 (EST)
Received: from dspnet.fr.eu.org (dspnet.fr.eu.org [213.186.44.138])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0ACDDD1B
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:40:25 +1000 (EST)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:31:45 +0200
From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spinlock: __raw_spin_is_locked() should return true for UP
Message-ID: <20090819093145.GA53298@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
References: <1250635343-32546-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org>
	<alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181618420.3158@localhost.localdomain>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0908181931180.28398@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181640120.3158@localhost.localdomain>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.0908182003430.18648@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
	<BB2762BC-C760-4D4C-BDCF-76EFD3E1B18D@kernel.crashing.org>
	<alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181937400.3158@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0908181937400.3158@localhost.localdomain>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:40:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK enabled.
> 
> 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.

I always thought behaviour should be consistent between code with
debugging on and code without.  Otherwise you may end up with cases of
"it starts working when I turn on debugging" which are a pain to fix.
Has something changed?

Or in other words, do you think lockdep should try solving deadlocks
instead of just reporting them for instance?

  OG.