On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 15:27 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * 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? No, I had done the right thing in the first patch, as confirmed by what landed in 12-rt. The lock ain't "shared" is why I whacked it. You saw what happened to my confidence in that logic when Steven spoke. Eek :) -Mike -- 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
