Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Decorate the printk path with an "unlikely()"
Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
kernel/rtmutex.c | 8 ++++----
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/rtmutex.c b/kernel/rtmutex.c
index 122f143..ebdaa17 100644
--- a/kernel/rtmutex.c
+++ b/kernel/rtmutex.c
@@ -660,12 +660,12 @@ rt_spin_lock_fastlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
void fastcall (*slowfn)(struct rt_mutex *lock))
{
/* Temporary HACK! */
- if (!current->in_printk)
- might_sleep();
- else if (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled())
+ if (unlikely(current->in_printk) && (in_atomic() || irqs_disabled()))
/* don't grab locks for printk in atomic */
return;
+ might_sleep();
I think you changed the code here... you call might_sleep() in
different cases afaict.
Agreed, but it's still correct afaict. I added an extra might_sleep()
to a path that really might sleep. I should have mentioned that in the
header.
In any case, its moot. Andi indicated this patch is probably a no-op so
I was considering dropping it on the v2 pass.
Regards,
-Greg
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
