* Mike Galbraith | 2014-05-07 16:20:15 [+0200]: >> > 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_); Think we should drop rwlock_acquire_read() and use rwlock_acquire() instead (like the previous patch) because on -RT there is no difference between a read and a write lock. Or is there more to it? > else > migrate_enable(); > Sebastian -- 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
