Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:14:55 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [patch-rt v2] rtmutex: Fix lock stealing logic |
| |
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 16:07:19 +0200 Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-23 at 09:33 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > struct task_struct *task, > > > @@ -886,20 +901,16 @@ static int __try_to_take_rt_mutex(struct > > > */ > > > if (waiter) { > > > /* > > > - * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of > > > - * @lock, give up. > > > + * If waiter is not the highest priority waiter of @lock, > > > + * or its peer when lateral steal is allowed, give up. > > > */ > > > - if (waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) { > > > - /* XXX rt_mutex_waiter_less() ? */ > > > + if (!rt_mutex_steal(lock, waiter, mode)) > > > return 0; > > > - } > > > - > > > /* > > > * We can acquire the lock. Remove the waiter from the > > > * lock waiters tree. > > > */ > > > rt_mutex_dequeue(lock, waiter); > > > - > > > > I liked that space. > > I like minus signs in diffstat, that one was a freebee. Maintainers > can revive it if they like, or I can post a V3 with it revived as well > as s/rt_mutex_steal/rt_mutex_claim. >
It's not bigly to me.
-- Steve
| |