Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:06 -0000
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/