On Sunday 04 June 2006 11:08, Peter Williams wrote:
> 3. Thanks to suggestions from Con Kolivas with respect to alternative
> methods to reduce the possibility of a task being starved of CPU while
> holding an important system resource, enforcement of caps is now
> quite strict.  However, there will still be occasions where caps may be
> exceeded due to this mechanism vetoing enforcement.

Transcription bug here:

>  int fastcall __sched mutex_lock_interruptible(struct mutex *lock)
>  {
> +	int ret;
> +
>  	might_sleep();
>  	return __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval
>  			(&lock->count, __mutex_lock_interruptible_slowpath);

should be ret = 

> +
> +	if (!ret)
> +		inc_mutex_count();
> +
> +	return ret;
>  }
>

compare with here:

>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_lock_interruptible);
> @@ -366,8 +390,13 @@ static inline int __mutex_trylock_slowpa
>   */
>  int fastcall __sched mutex_trylock(struct mutex *lock)
>  {
> -	return __mutex_fastpath_trylock(&lock->count,
> +	int ret = __mutex_fastpath_trylock(&lock->count,
>  					__mutex_trylock_slowpath);
> +
> +	if (!ret)
> +		inc_mutex_count();
> +
> +	return ret;
>  }
>
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(mutex_trylock);

-- 
-ck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/