From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754051AbcEWN4e (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2016 09:56:34 -0400 Received: from smtp2.provo.novell.com ([137.65.250.81]:58098 "EHLO smtp2.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753165AbcEWN4c (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2016 09:56:32 -0400 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org Cc: Waiman.Long@hpe.com, dave@stgolabs.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso Subject: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock() Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 06:54:02 -0700 Message-Id: <1464011642-29168-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.8.2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ... it has no users and we already have the the regular spin_is_lock() call anyway -- although iirc this was going to be different than the simple negation for lock elision implementations. Lets drop it. Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso --- include/linux/spinlock.h | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/spinlock.h b/include/linux/spinlock.h index 47dd0cebd204..047c6f6c3268 100644 --- a/include/linux/spinlock.h +++ b/include/linux/spinlock.h @@ -264,12 +264,6 @@ static inline void do_raw_spin_unlock(raw_spinlock_t *lock) __releases(lock) 1 : ({ local_irq_restore(flags); 0; }); \ }) -/** - * raw_spin_can_lock - would raw_spin_trylock() succeed? - * @lock: the spinlock in question. - */ -#define raw_spin_can_lock(lock) (!raw_spin_is_locked(lock)) - /* Include rwlock functions */ #include @@ -392,11 +386,6 @@ static __always_inline int spin_is_contended(spinlock_t *lock) return raw_spin_is_contended(&lock->rlock); } -static __always_inline int spin_can_lock(spinlock_t *lock) -{ - return raw_spin_can_lock(&lock->rlock); -} - #define assert_spin_locked(lock) assert_raw_spin_locked(&(lock)->rlock) /* -- 2.8.2