Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

2014-06-10 Thread Brad Mouring
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:28:06PM -, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock > owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear. > > Found while documenting the chain walk. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner I also am not

Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

2014-06-09 Thread Lai Jiangshan
On 06/10/2014 04:59 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:06 - > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock >> owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear. >> >> Found while documenting the chain walk. >

Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

2014-06-09 Thread Jason Low
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock > owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear. > > Found while documenting the chain walk. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner Reviewed-by: Jason Low

Re: [patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

2014-06-09 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 20:28:06 - Thomas Gleixner wrote: > There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock > owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear. > > Found while documenting the chain walk. This looks fine, I just hate the subject. I don't see h

[patch V3 1/7] rtmutex: Deobfuscate chain walk

2014-06-09 Thread Thomas Gleixner
There is no point to keep the task ref across the check for lock owner. Drop the ref before that, so the protection context is clear. Found while documenting the chain walk. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner --- kernel/locking/rtmutex.c |5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)