On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:06 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock
> owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear.
>
> Found while documenting the chain walk.
This looks fine, I just hate the subject. I don't see how it is
'deobfuscating" the chain walk. How about:
rtmutex: No need to keep task ref when checking lock ownership
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
> ---
> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> +++ tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c
> @@ -411,6 +411,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
>
> /* Release the task */
> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags);
> + put_task_struct(task);
> +
> if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) {
> /*
> * If the requeue above changed the top waiter, then we need
> @@ -420,9 +422,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> if (top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock))
> wake_up_process(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task);
> raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock);
> - goto out_put_task;
> + return 0;
> }
> - put_task_struct(task);
>
> /* Grab the next task */
> task = rt_mutex_owner(lock);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
