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(-) Index: tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c =================================================================== --- tip.orig/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c +++ tip/kernel/locking/rtmutex.c @@ -411,6 +411,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st /* Release the task */ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&task->pi_lock, flags); + put_task_struct(task); + if (!rt_mutex_owner(lock)) { /* * If the requeue above changed the top waiter, then we need @@ -420,9 +422,8 @@ static int rt_mutex_adjust_prio_chain(st if (top_waiter != rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)) wake_up_process(rt_mutex_top_waiter(lock)->task); raw_spin_unlock(&lock->wait_lock); - goto out_put_task; + return 0; } - put_task_struct(task); /* Grab the next task */ task = rt_mutex_owner(lock); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/