On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Can this be rephrased to: "Returns true if preemption has been
> disabled and a call to rt_mutex_postunlock() is required (which will
> re-enable preemption)"
I agree with Steven that the comments
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Can this be rephrased to: "Returns true if preemption has been
> disabled and a call to rt_mutex_postunlock() is required (which will
> re-enable preemption)"
I agree with Steven that the comments should be rephrased.
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:32:18 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of
> rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> ---
>
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:32:18 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of
> rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> ---
> kernel/futex.c | 12 ++--
>
Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of
rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
kernel/futex.c | 12 ++--
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c| 20
Previous patches changed the meaning of the return value of
rt_mutex_slowunlock(); update comments and code to reflect this.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
kernel/futex.c | 12 ++--
kernel/locking/rtmutex.c| 20 +---
6 matches
Mail list logo