On Thu 02-01-14 20:53:05, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:39:27 +0100
> Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
> > console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
> > calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:39:27 +0100
Jan Kara wrote:
> There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
> console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
> calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it immediately
> unlocks lockbuf_lock. So lockbuf_lock isn't
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:39:27 +0100
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it immediately
unlocks lockbuf_lock. So lockbuf_lock
On Thu 02-01-14 20:53:05, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:39:27 +0100
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it
There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it immediately
unlocks lockbuf_lock. So lockbuf_lock isn't needed for that branch.
When down_trylock() succeeds, the rest of
There's no reason to hold lockbuf_lock when entering
console_trylock_for_printk(). The first thing this function does is
calling down_trylock(console_sem) and if that fails it immediately
unlocks lockbuf_lock. So lockbuf_lock isn't needed for that branch.
When down_trylock() succeeds, the rest of
6 matches
Mail list logo