From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757468AbcFAMpg (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:45:36 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:42291 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750822AbcFAMpf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:45:35 -0400
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:45:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, Waiman.Long@hpe.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spinlock: Get rid of spin_can_lock()
Message-ID: <20160601124530.GM3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1464011642-29168-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1464011642-29168-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 06:54:02AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> ... 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.

What about {read,write}_can_lock() ? those look equally unused and
borken.