Good point. Will fix.
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Eric van Gyzen <e...@vangyzen.net> wrote:
> On 05/19/2018 00:09, Matt Macy wrote:
>> @@ -1663,16 +1655,18 @@ static int
>> umtxq_sleep_pi(struct umtx_q *uq, struct umtx_pi *pi, uint32_t owner,
>> const char *wmesg, struct abs_timeout *timo, bool shared)
>> {
>> - struct umtxq_chain *uc;
>> struct thread *td, *td1;
>> struct umtx_q *uq1;
>> int error, pri;
>> +#ifdef INVARIANTS
>> + struct umtxq_chain *uc;
>>
>> + uc = umtxq_getchain(&pi->pi_key);
>> +#endif
>> error = 0;
>> td = uq->uq_thread;
>> KASSERT(td == curthread, ("inconsistent uq_thread"));
>> - uc = umtxq_getchain(&uq->uq_key);
>> - UMTXQ_LOCKED_ASSERT(uc);
>> + UMTXQ_LOCKED_ASSERT(umtxq_getchain(&uq->uq_key));
>
> Couldn't this line stay as it was?
>
> UMTXQ_LOCKED_ASSERT(uc);
>
> With the current code, we're calling umtxq_getchain() once more than
> necessary. Also, the casual reader might be confused by calling it with
> two different arguments.
>
> Eric
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
