[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292423557.5015.1868.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:32:37 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@...il.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtmutex: multiple candidate owners without unrelated
boosting
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 15:16 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> That does not matter. The interesting part is whether the lock on
> which orig_waiter is blocked on was unlocked. Lai's follow up patch does:
>
> + if (orig_waiter && !rt_mutex_owner(orig_lock))
> goto out_unlock_pi;
>
I haven't looked at his new patch yet. But if this is the case, then we
can nuke all cand_* fields. This was the only reason I kept the
cand_owner in the first place.
Thanks,
-- Steve
--
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