On 06/06/2014 01:53 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Now in general, I don't particularly like such superfluous changes, so
>> unless you can show that GCC actually generates better code, I'd prefer
>> to keep things as they are.
>
> Fixed and checked the assembly. It saves us 2 bytes of code, not much. I am
> not sure if that is worth it :(
>
> use bool as the return type for rwsem_is_locked() instead of int
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com>
> ---
> include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h | 2 +-
> include/linux/rwsem.h | 2 +-
> kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c | 4 ++--
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
> index d5b13bc..9026d2a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem-spinlock.h
> @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ extern int __down_write_trylock(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> extern void __up_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> extern void __up_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> extern void __downgrade_write(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> -extern int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
> +extern bool rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem);
>
> #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
> #endif /* _LINUX_RWSEM_SPINLOCK_H */
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwsem.h b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> index 03f3b05..b056780 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwsem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwsem.h
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ extern struct rw_semaphore *rwsem_downgrade_wake(struct
> rw_semaphore *sem);
> #include <asm/rwsem.h>
>
> /* In all implementations count != 0 means locked */
> -static inline int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +static inline bool rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> return sem->count != 0;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> index 9be8a91..3f8adf8 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> @@ -20,9 +20,9 @@ struct rwsem_waiter {
> enum rwsem_waiter_type type;
> };
>
> -int rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> +bool rwsem_is_locked(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
> {
> - int ret = 1;
> + bool ret = true;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> if (raw_spin_trylock_irqsave(&sem->wait_lock, flags)) {
>
I observed one other user of rwsem_is_locked() in xfs, change accordingly
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.pr...@gmail.com>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 2 +-
fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
index 768087b..9047eda 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ xfs_ilock_demote(
}
#if defined(DEBUG) || defined(XFS_WARN)
-int
+bool
xfs_isilocked(
xfs_inode_t *ip,
uint lock_flags)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
index f2fcde5..80649a1 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ void xfs_ilock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
int xfs_ilock_nowait(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
void xfs_iunlock(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
void xfs_ilock_demote(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
-int xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
+bool xfs_isilocked(xfs_inode_t *, uint);
uint xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
uint xfs_ilock_attr_map_shared(struct xfs_inode *);
int xfs_ialloc(struct xfs_trans *, xfs_inode_t *, umode_t,
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
