On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:46PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > From: Nicolai Hähnle <nicolai.haeh...@amd.com> > > The function will be re-used in subsequent patches. > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <d...@mblankhorst.nl> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <dan...@ffwll.ch> > Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org > Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <nicolai.haeh...@amd.com> > --- > 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 <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
