On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:07:19 +0200
Mike Galbraith <efa...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 09:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > struct task_struct *task,
> > > @@ -886,20 +901,16 @@ static int __try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct
> > > */
> > > if (waiter) {
> > > /*
> > > - * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of
> > > - * @lock, give up.
> > > + * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of @lock,
> > > + * or its peer when lateral steal is allowed, give up.
> > > */
> > > - if (waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
> > > - /* XXX rt_mutex_waiter_less() ? */
> > > + if (!rt_mutex_steal(lock, waiter, mode))
> > > return 0;
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > /*
> > > * We can acquire the lock. Remove the waiter from the
> > > * lock waiters tree.
> > > */
> > > rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter);
> > > -
> >
> > I liked that space.
>
> I like minus signs in diffstat, that one was a freebee. Maintainers
> can revive it if they like, or I can post a V3 with it revived as well
> as s/rt_mutex_steal/rt_mutex_claim.
>
It's not bigly to me.
-- Steve
