Re: [PATCH] lock assertion macros for 2.5.28

[Jesse Barnes]

On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 04:09:18PM +0400, Joshua MacDonald wrote:
> In reiser4 we are looking forward to having a MUST_NOT_HOLD (i.e.,
> spin_is_not_locked) assertion for kernel spinlocks.  Do you know if any
> progress has been made in that direction?

Well, I had that in one version of the patch, but people didn't think
it would be useful.  Maybe you'd like to check out Oliver's comments
at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102644431806734&w=2
and respond?  If there's demand for MUST_NOT_HOLD, I'd be happy to add
it since it should be easy.  But if you're using it to enforce lock
ordering as Oliver suggests, then there are probably more robust
solutions.

Thanks,
Jesse