use_ww_ctx is equivalent to ww_ctx != NULL. The one case whereI think ww_mutex_lock() can be called with a NULL ctx. Your patch will effectively change those ww_mutex_lock() to be equivalent to mutex_lock(). So it is a behavioral change.
use_ww_ctx was true but ww_ctx == NULL leads to the same
__mutex_add_waiter() call via __ww_mutex_add_waiter().
Since now __ww_mutex_add_waiter() is called only with ww_mutex != NULL,That code is probably not needed given the current usage. Perhaps, you can change it to "WARN_ON_ONCE(ww_ctx && !use_ww_ctx);"
remove the branch there.
Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/mutex.c | 16 ++++++----------
kernel/locking/ww_mutex.h | 5 -----
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
index d973fe6041bf..2f0e318233f5 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c
@@ -568,15 +568,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ww_mutex_unlock);
static __always_inline int __sched
__mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclass,
struct lockdep_map *nest_lock, unsigned long ip,
- struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx, const bool use_ww_ctx)
+ struct ww_acquire_ctx *ww_ctx)
{
struct mutex_waiter waiter;
struct ww_mutex *ww;
int ret;
- if (!use_ww_ctx)
- ww_ctx = NULL;
-
might_sleep();This one is fine.
MUTEX_WARN_ON(lock->magic != lock);
@@ -627,12 +624,11 @@ __mutex_lock_common(struct mutex *lock, unsigned int state, unsigned int subclas
debug_mutex_lock_common(lock, &waiter);
waiter.task = current;
- if (use_ww_ctx)
- waiter.ww_ctx = ww_ctx;
+ waiter.ww_ctx = ww_ctx;
lock_contended(&lock->dep_map, ip);That change will break ww_mutex.
- if (!use_ww_ctx) {
+ if (!ww_ctx) {