On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Bill Huey (hui) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's probably safe to use, but it's not what its original purpose was
> and you should use another function/macro. This is an annotation issue
> and your use of it is inconsistent with how it's used in voluntary
>
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Bill Huey (hui) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's probably safe to use, but it's not what its original purpose was
and you should use another function/macro. This is an annotation issue
and your use of it is inconsistent with how it's used in voluntary
preempt.
[repost with all folks CCed]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Gregory Haskins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying that the modified logic that I introduced is broken? Or
> that the original use of the might_sleep() annotation inside this
> function is broken?
It's probably safe to
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
The might_sleep is annotation and well as a conditional preemption
point for the regular kernel. You might want to do a schedule check
there, but it's the wrong function if memory serves me correctly. It's
reserved for things that actually are design to sleep.
Note that
Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
The might_sleep is annotation and well as a conditional preemption
point for the regular kernel. You might want to do a schedule check
there, but it's the wrong function if memory serves me correctly. It's
reserved for things that actually are design to sleep.
Note that
[repost with all folks CCed]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Gregory Haskins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that the modified logic that I introduced is broken? Or
that the original use of the might_sleep() annotation inside this
function is broken?
It's probably safe to use,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Gregory Haskins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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
---
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
> ---
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
---
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
---
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Gregory Haskins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:27:22 Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> @@ -660,12 +660,12 @@ rt_spin_lock_fastlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
>> void fastcall (*slowfn)(struct
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:27:22 Gregory Haskins wrote:
> @@ -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();
> -
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
+++
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
+++
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:27:22 Gregory Haskins wrote:
@@ -660,12 +660,12 @@ rt_spin_lock_fastlock(struct rt_mutex *lock,
void fastcall (*slowfn)(struct rt_mutex *lock))
On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:27:22 Gregory Haskins wrote:
@@ -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
18 matches
Mail list logo
