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
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.
>
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
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
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(-)
5 matches
Mail list logo