Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:25:58 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_mutex.c Message-ID: <200802140925.58430.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10802131616p53b2bae2ma4bccef2d8c8fb76@mail.gmail.com> References: <200802132333.m1DNXokI060695@repoman.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10802131616p53b2bae2ma4bccef2d8c8fb76@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 07:16:11 pm Attilio Rao wrote: > 2008/2/14, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>: > > jhb 2008-02-13 23:33:50 UTC > > > > FreeBSD src repository > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern kern_mutex.c > > Log: > > Add a couple of assertions and KTR logging to thread_lock_flags() to > > match mtx_lock_spin_flags(). > > As I tried to pointed out in perforce, it would not be better to check > against LC_SPINLOCK (and lc_flags) instead than direct comparisons > with lock_class_mtx_spin ? In this case, no, as if we had a foo lock that was a spin lock, mtx_lock_spin() and thread_lock() would still be wrong. They truly only operate on MTX_SPIN mutexes. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802140925.58430.jhb>