Re: [PATCH -v2 5/9] rtmutex: Clean up

2016-09-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
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

Re: [PATCH -v2 5/9] rtmutex: Clean up

2016-09-29 Thread Thomas Gleixner
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.

Re: [PATCH -v2 5/9] rtmutex: Clean up

2016-09-26 Thread Steven Rostedt
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) > --- >

Re: [PATCH -v2 5/9] rtmutex: Clean up

2016-09-26 Thread Steven Rostedt
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 ++-- >

[PATCH -v2 5/9] rtmutex: Clean up

2016-09-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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

[PATCH -v2 5/9] rtmutex: Clean up

2016-09-26 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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 +---