[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1406102245270.5170@nanos>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:46:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
cc: Brad Mouring <bmouring@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 7/7] rtmutex: Avoid pointless requeueing in the deadlock
detection chain walk
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:43:16 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 09:57:25 -0500
> > > "Brad Mouring" <bmouring@...com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > + /* Store whether owner is blocked itself and drop locks */
> > > > > + next_lock = task_blocked_on(task);
> > > > task_blocked_on(task) is not clear to me, the recipient of the
> > > > return is the only clue that hints at what the function does.
> > >
> > > Well, this is more than confusing, it's the only user, all other users
> > > are task_blocked_on_lock(), and this causes the code not to compile.
> >
> > Grr, yes.
>
> Luckily you are not posting this to that grumpy IRQ maintainer. He'd
> shoot some frozen sharks your way if you sent him patches like this ;-)
Rightfully so. :)
--
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