On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 16:01 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-05-07 at 09:48 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 May 2014 09:54:07 +0200
> > Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > rt-rw-lockdep-annotations.patch missed an rwlock_acquire_read()
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/locking/rt.c | 3 +--
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/rt.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/rt.c
> > > @@ -244,13 +244,12 @@ void __lockfunc rt_read_lock(rwlock_t *r
> > > {
> > > struct rt_mutex *lock = &rwlock->lock;
> > >
> > > -
> > > /*
> > > * recursive read locks succeed when current owns the lock
> > > */
> > > if (rt_mutex_owner(lock) != current) {
> > > migrate_disable();
> > > - rwlock_acquire_read(&rwlock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > > + rwlock_acquire(&rwlock->dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
> > > __rt_spin_lock(lock);
> >
> > This looks like it reverse applies?
>
>
> Nope, I thought Thomas's whacked the one he did on purpose.
I should learn to speak lockdep. How about this instead?
locking/rt: fix rt_read_trylock() lockdep annotation.
rt-rw-lockdep-annotations.patch dropped a rwlock_acquire_read
Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@xxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/locking/rt.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rt.c
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ int __lockfunc rt_read_trylock(rwlock_t
migrate_disable();
ret = rt_mutex_trylock(lock);
if (ret)
- rwlock_acquire(&rwlock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
+ rwlock_acquire_read(&rwlock->dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
else
migrate_enable();
@@ -244,7 +244,6 @@ void __lockfunc rt_read_lock(rwlock_t *r
{
struct rt_mutex *lock = &rwlock->lock;
-
/*
* recursive read locks succeed when current owns the lock
*/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
