[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <165243866737.4207.3194810680223006844.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 10:44:27 -0000
From: "tip-bot2 for Sebastian Andrzej Siewior" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, andrealmeid@...lia.com,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip: locking/core] futex: Remove a PREEMPT_RT_FULL reference.
The following commit has been merged into the locking/core branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 6829061315065c7af394d556a887fbf847e4e708
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/6829061315065c7af394d556a887fbf847e4e708
Author: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
AuthorDate: Wed, 11 May 2022 17:29:22 +02:00
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CommitterDate: Fri, 13 May 2022 12:36:51 +02:00
futex: Remove a PREEMPT_RT_FULL reference.
Earlier the PREEMPT_RT patch had a PREEMPT_RT_FULL and PREEMPT_RT_BASE
Kconfig option. The latter was a subset of the functionality that was
enabled with PREEMPT_RT_FULL and was mainly useful for debugging.
During the merging efforts the two Kconfig options were abandoned in the
v5.4.3-rt1 release and since then there is only PREEMPT_RT which enables
the full features set (as PREEMPT_RT_FULL did in earlier releases).
Replace the PREEMPT_RT_FULL reference with PREEMPT_RT.
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Reviewed-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YnvWUvq1vpqCfCU7@linutronix.de
---
kernel/futex/pi.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/futex/pi.c b/kernel/futex/pi.c
index 183b28c..ce2889f 100644
--- a/kernel/futex/pi.c
+++ b/kernel/futex/pi.c
@@ -1005,7 +1005,7 @@ retry_private:
rt_mutex_init_waiter(&rt_waiter);
/*
- * On PREEMPT_RT_FULL, when hb->lock becomes an rt_mutex, we must not
+ * On PREEMPT_RT, when hb->lock becomes an rt_mutex, we must not
* hold it while doing rt_mutex_start_proxy(), because then it will
* include hb->lock in the blocking chain, even through we'll not in
* fact hold it while blocking. This will lead it to report -EDEADLK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists