On Wed, 28 May 2014 11:43:16 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > In the above case, could we go 1 step further and avoid taking the pi
> > lock as well?
[snip]
>
> Indeed.
>
>
Are you going to repost this patch? I'd like to review that one instead
of this one if you're
On Wed, 28 May 2014 11:43:16 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
[snip]
In the above case, could we go 1 step further and avoid taking the pi
lock as well?
[snip]
Indeed.
Are you going to repost this patch? I'd like to review that one instead
of this one if
On Tue, 27 May 2014, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > @@ -440,32 +452,41 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> > get_task_struct(task);
> > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(>pi_lock, flags);
> >
> > - if (waiter ==
On Tue, 27 May 2014, Jason Low wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
@@ -440,32 +452,41 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
get_task_struct(task);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(task-pi_lock, flags);
- if (waiter ==
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> @@ -440,32 +452,41 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
> get_task_struct(task);
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(>pi_lock, flags);
>
> - if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
> - /*
> -
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
@@ -440,32 +452,41 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st
get_task_struct(task);
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(task-pi_lock, flags);
- if (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) {
- /*
6 matches
Mail list logo