On 06/10/2014 08:53 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:08 -0000 > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> Exit right away, when the removed waiter was not the top prioriy >> waiter on the lock. Get rid of the extra indent level. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> >> --- >> kernel/locking/rtmutex.c | 26 ++++++++++---------------- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> >> Index: tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c >> =================================================================== >> --- tip.orig/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c >> +++ tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c >> @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute >> { >> int first = (waiter == rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)); >> struct task_struct *owner = rt_mutex_owner(lock); >> - struct rt_mutex *next_lock = NULL; >> + struct rt_mutex *next_lock; >> unsigned long flags; >> >> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(¤t->pi_lock, flags); >> @@ -788,28 +788,22 @@ static void remove_waiter(struct rt_mute >> current->pi_blocked_on = NULL; >> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(¤t->pi_lock, flags); >> > > Add comment here, something like... > > /* > * Only update priority if this task was the highest priority > * task waiting on the lock, and there is an owner to update. > */ > > Rest looks good. > > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
Reviewed-by: Lai Jiangshan <la...@cn.fujitsu.com> Thanks, Lai -- 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/