* Davidlohr Bueso <d...@stgolabs.net> wrote:
> @@ -1674,13 +1689,19 @@ retry_private:
> }
>
> /*
> - * Wake nr_wake waiters. For requeue_pi, if we acquired the
> - * lock, we already woke the top_waiter. If not, it will be
> - * woken by futex_unlock_pi().
> + * For requeue_pi, if we acquired the lock, we already woke
> + * the top_waiter. If not, it will be woken by futex_unlock_pi.
> + *
> + * The regular (non-pi) case is much simpler: Wake the top
> + * waiter (next in line) and repeat.
> */
> - if (++task_count <= nr_wake && !requeue_pi) {
> - wake_futex(this);
> - continue;
> + if (!requeue_pi) {
> + if (!wake_futex(this)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
> + if (++task_count <= nr_wake)
> + continue;
> }
>
Hm, so at a first glance this change appears to go beyond
the scope of adding a return value to wake_futex()?
For example before the change in the !requeue_pi case we'd
only call wake_futex() if ++task_count <= nr_wake, after
the change we always call it.
What's the intention here?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
