On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:08, Peter Williams wrote:
> 3. Thanks to suggestions from Con Kolivas with respect to alternative
> methods to reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while
> holding an important system resource, enforcement of caps is now
> quite strict. However, there will still be occasions where caps may be
> exceeded due to this mechanism vetoing enforcement.
Transcription bug here:
> int fastcall __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> might_sleep();
> return __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval
> (&lock->count, __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath);
should be ret =
> +
> + if (!ret)
> + inc_mutex_count();
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
compare with here:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock_interruptible);
> @@ -366,8 +390,13 @@ static inline int __mutex_trylock_slowpa
> */
> int fastcall __sched mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock)
> {
> - return __mutex_fastpath_trylock(&lock->count,
> + int ret = __mutex_fastpath_trylock(&lock->count,
> __mutex_trylock_slowpath);
> +
> + if (!ret)
> + inc_mutex_count();
> +
> + return ret;
> }
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_trylock);
--
-ck
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
