On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 00:09:43 +0800 (CST) <[email protected]> wrote:
> >We only do the check if the immediate double_lock_balance() released > >the current task rq lock, but we don't take into account if it was > >released earlier, which means it could have migrated and we never > >noticed! > > > double_lock_balance may release current rq's lock,but it just for get the > locks of the two rq's in order > and it immediately reacquire the current rq's lock before double_lock_balance > returns. > >I believe the code should look like this: > > Bah, I didn't even compile it. And thought it was "double_lock_balance", and didn't notice it was double_unlock_balance() (this is what I get for trying to do too much at once). Sad part is, I noticed this back when I added reviewed-by, but then looking at it again, I did the same mistake :-/ Yeah, never mind, it's fine, my original reviewed-by stands. -- Steve
