* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > - spin_lock(&new_base->lock); > - spin_lock(&old_base->lock); > + /* > + * If we take a lock from a different cpu, make sure we have always > + * the same locking order. That is the lock that belongs to the cpu > + * with the lowest number is taken first. > + */ > + lock1 = smp_processor_id() < cpu ? &new_base->lock : &old_base->lock; > + lock2 = smp_processor_id() < cpu ? &old_base->lock : &new_base->lock; > + spin_lock(lock1); > + spin_lock(lock2); looks good to me. Wouldnt this be cleaner via double_lock_timer() - similar to how double_rq_lock() works in kernel/sched.c - instead of open-coding it? Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
