Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] locking/ww_mutex: Extract stamp comparison to __ww_mutex_stamp_after

[Chris Wilson]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:46PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> From: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@xxxxxxx>
> 
> The function will be re-used in subsequent patches.
> 
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <Nicolai.Haehnle@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/mutex.c | 10 ++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> index 0afa998..200629a 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
> @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ static __always_inline void ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww,
>  	ww_ctx->acquired++;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool __sched
> +__ww_mutex_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)

Should it be ww_mutex_stamp or ww_acquire_stamp / ww_ctx_stamp?

Nothing else operates on the ww_acquire_ctx without a ww_mutex so it
might look a bit odd if it didn't use ww_mutex.

Patch only does what it says on tin, so
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre