Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On 2017-02-10 10:09:29 [-0800], Andy Ritger wrote:
> > > Is the
> > > 
> > >     WARN_ON(rt_mutex_is_locked(lock));
> > > 
> > > in rt_mutex_destroy() valuable in non-CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES kernels,
> > > such that it would be better to always call it, and not noop away mutex_destroy()
> > > non-CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES kernels?  I thought that was your objection to
> > > Alex's original patch.
> > 
> > It kind of wasâ
> > So first I removed the GPL symbol. Then I wasn't too happy about it
> > especially since it was not introduced as part of RT. So I reverted that
> > changed and aligned with mainline behaviour (the mutex_rt.h hunk). But
> > then I noticed that with CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n and
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES=y we still have a regression compared to !RT and
> > this was the initial motivation to fix things.
> > Then I got curious why mutex_lock() (which is essential rt_mutex_lock())
> > works and noticed the wrapper around it. And while looking at it I
> > decided to go back to strip the GPL part from export symbol instead of
> > adding a wrapper. And here I am.
> > Then I was looking at the patch and decided to align with mainline (and
> > keep that one hunk) in case Ingo ask for his GPL symbol.
> 
> tglx and Peter Zijlstra are main co-authors of kernel/locking/rtmutex.c, and every 
> author (copyright holder) has to agree to changing a GPL export of a kernel 
> subsystem's API to a non-GPL export.

I'm fine with that change as it really hurts users and makes RT behave the
same way as mainline.

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

	tglx