[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150219095637.GA344@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:56:37 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] futex: Robustify wake_futex()
* Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
> @@ -1674,13 +1689,19 @@ retry_private:
> }
>
> /*
> - * Wake nr_wake waiters. For requeue_pi, if we acquired the
> - * lock, we already woke the top_waiter. If not, it will be
> - * woken by futex_unlock_pi().
> + * For requeue_pi, if we acquired the lock, we already woke
> + * the top_waiter. If not, it will be woken by futex_unlock_pi.
> + *
> + * The regular (non-pi) case is much simpler: Wake the top
> + * waiter (next in line) and repeat.
> */
> - if (++task_count <= nr_wake && !requeue_pi) {
> - wake_futex(this);
> - continue;
> + if (!requeue_pi) {
> + if (!wake_futex(this)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + break;
> + }
> + if (++task_count <= nr_wake)
> + continue;
> }
>
Hm, so at a first glance this change appears to go beyond
the scope of adding a return value to wake_futex()?
For example before the change in the !requeue_pi case we'd
only call wake_futex() if ++task_count <= nr_wake, after
the change we always call it.
What's the intention here?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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