linux-kernel - [PATCH 17/28] locking/lockdep: Remove redundant argument in check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190424101934.51535-18-duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 18:19:23 +0800
From:   Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To:     peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Cc:     bvanassche@....org, ming.lei@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH 17/28] locking/lockdep: Remove redundant argument in check_deadlock

In check_deadlock(), the third argument read comes from the second
argument hlock so that it can be removed. No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
---
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index d153b97..eb85183 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2143,7 +2143,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
  * Returns: 0 on deadlock detected, 1 on OK, 2 on recursive read
  */
 static int
-check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next, int read)
+check_deadlock(struct task_struct *curr, struct held_lock *next)
 {
 	struct held_lock *prev;
 	struct held_lock *nest = NULL;
@@ -2162,7 +2162,7 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
 		 * Allow read-after-read recursion of the same
 		 * lock class (i.e. read_lock(lock)+read_lock(lock)):
 		 */
-		if ((read == 2) && prev->read)
+		if ((next->read == 2) && prev->read)
 			return 2;
 
 		/*
@@ -2727,7 +2727,7 @@ static int validate_chain(struct task_struct *curr,
 		 * The simple case: does the current hold the same lock
 		 * already?
 		 */
-		int ret = check_deadlock(curr, hlock, hlock->read);
+		int ret = check_deadlock(curr, hlock);
 
 		if (!ret)
 			return 0;
-- 
1.8.3.1