On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 01:38:16AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> A simple consolidataion. The behaviour should not change.
>
> Signed-off-by: J. R. Okajima <hooanon...@gmail.com>
> ---
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> index b7a2001..7dc8f8e 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> @@ -3464,6 +3464,23 @@ static struct held_lock *find_held_lock(struct
> task_struct *curr,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int validate_held_lock(struct task_struct *curr, unsigned int depth,
> + int idx)
> +{
> + struct held_lock *hlock;
> +
> + for (hlock = curr->held_locks + idx; idx < depth; idx++, hlock++)
> + if (!__lock_acquire(hlock->instance,
> + hlock_class(hlock)->subclass,
> + hlock->trylock,
> + hlock->read, hlock->check,
> + hlock->hardirqs_off,
> + hlock->nest_lock, hlock->acquire_ip,
> + hlock->references, hlock->pin_count))
> + return 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
I added the extra { } required by coding style and renamed the function
to reacquire_held_locks().
Plural because it has the loop, and reacquire because that is what it
does. Alternatively 'rebuild' is also possible if someone really doesn't
like reacquire.
