[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100322130718.4b5bc6a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:07:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] ratelimit: Fix return value when fail to get
lock
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:58:44 +0800
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com> wrote:
> >From log of commit edaac8e3167501cda336231d00611bf59c164346,
> It seems that we want to suppress the callback when trylock
> fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> ---
> lib/ratelimit.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/ratelimit.c b/lib/ratelimit.c
> index 29a10b3..358638f 100644
> --- a/lib/ratelimit.c
> +++ b/lib/ratelimit.c
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ int ___ratelimit(struct ratelimit_state *rs, const char *func)
> * the entity that is holding the lock already:
> */
> if (!spin_trylock_irqsave(&rs->lock, flags))
> - return 1;
> + return 0;
>
> if (!rs->begin)
> rs->begin = jiffies;
Looks right to me. I queued all three patches for 2.6.34.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists