linux-kernel - [PATCH 09/23] Subject: SCHED - Consistency cleanup for this

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071204204511.3567.79678.stgit@novell1.haskins.net>
Date:	Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:45:11 -0500
From:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	mingo@...e.hu
Cc:	rostedt@...dmis.org, ghaskins@...ell.com,
	linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 09/23] Subject: SCHED - Consistency cleanup for this_rq usage

"this_rq" is normally used to denote the RQ on the current cpu
(i.e. "cpu_rq(this_cpu)").  So clean up the usage of this_rq to be
more consistent with the rest of the code.

Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
---

 kernel/sched_rt.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c
index e5bce6a..d8f8738 100644
--- a/kernel/sched_rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c
@@ -326,21 +326,21 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task,
  * running task can migrate over to a CPU that is running a task
  * of lesser priority.
  */
-static int push_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
+static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
 {
 	struct task_struct *next_task;
 	struct rq *lowest_rq;
 	int ret = 0;
 	int paranoid = RT_MAX_TRIES;
 
-	assert_spin_locked(&this_rq->lock);
+	assert_spin_locked(&rq->lock);
 
-	next_task = pick_next_highest_task_rt(this_rq, -1);
+	next_task = pick_next_highest_task_rt(rq, -1);
 	if (!next_task)
 		return 0;
 
  retry:
-	if (unlikely(next_task == this_rq->curr)) {
+	if (unlikely(next_task == rq->curr)) {
 		WARN_ON(1);
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -350,24 +350,24 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
 	 * higher priority than current. If that's the case
 	 * just reschedule current.
 	 */
-	if (unlikely(next_task->prio < this_rq->curr->prio)) {
-		resched_task(this_rq->curr);
+	if (unlikely(next_task->prio < rq->curr->prio)) {
+		resched_task(rq->curr);
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	/* We might release this_rq lock */
+	/* We might release rq lock */
 	get_task_struct(next_task);
 
 	/* find_lock_lowest_rq locks the rq if found */
-	lowest_rq = find_lock_lowest_rq(next_task, this_rq);
+	lowest_rq = find_lock_lowest_rq(next_task, rq);
 	if (!lowest_rq) {
 		struct task_struct *task;
 		/*
-		 * find lock_lowest_rq releases this_rq->lock
+		 * find lock_lowest_rq releases rq->lock
 		 * so it is possible that next_task has changed.
 		 * If it has, then try again.
 		 */
-		task = pick_next_highest_task_rt(this_rq, -1);
+		task = pick_next_highest_task_rt(rq, -1);
 		if (unlikely(task != next_task) && task && paranoid--) {
 			put_task_struct(next_task);
 			next_task = task;
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *this_rq)
 
 	assert_spin_locked(&lowest_rq->lock);
 
-	deactivate_task(this_rq, next_task, 0);
+	deactivate_task(rq, next_task, 0);
 	set_task_cpu(next_task, lowest_rq->cpu);
 	activate_task(lowest_rq, next_task, 0);
 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/