On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 16:56 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > All wake_futex() callers already verify that the we are not dealing with > a pi futex_q, so we can remove the redundant WARN() check, as this is never > triggered anyway. > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: Darren Hart <[email protected]> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > Cc: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> > Cc: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> > Cc: Scott Norton <[email protected]> > Cc: Tom Vaden <[email protected]> > Cc: Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <[email protected]> > Cc: Waiman Long <[email protected]> > Cc: Jason Low <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/futex.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c > index e6ffe73..0768c68 100644 > --- a/kernel/futex.c > +++ b/kernel/futex.c > @@ -844,9 +844,6 @@ static void wake_futex(struct futex_q *q) > { > struct task_struct *p = q->task; > > - if (WARN(q->pi_state || q->rt_waiter, "refusing to wake PI futex\n")) > - return; > -
This was added deliberately after adding said checks to the callers... admittedly after a very long debug session I didn't ever want to repeat. Sometimes warnings are added to make sure we caught everything and later removed.... sometimes they are added to make sure nothing new ever breaks this again. Since the failure scenario is non-obvious, unless this is causing some significant performance issues for you, I'd prefer this stays. See commit aa10990e028cac3d5e255711fb9fb47e00700e35 for details. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
