From: Hernan Ponce de Leon
> Sent: 26 January 2023 21:07
...
> static __always_inline void rt_mutex_clear_owner(struct rt_mutex_base
> *lock)
> @@ -232,12 +232,7 @@ static __always_inline bool
> rt_mutex_cmpxchg_release(struct rt_mutex_base *lock,
> */
> static __always_inline void mark_rt_mutex_waiters(struct rt_mutex_base
> *lock)
> {
> - unsigned long owner, *p = (unsigned long *) &lock->owner;
> -
> - do {
> - owner = *p;
> - } while (cmpxchg_relaxed(p, owner,
> - owner | RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS) != owner);
> + atomic_long_or(RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS, (atomic_long_t *)&lock->owner);
These *(int_type *)&foo accesses (quite often just plain wrong)
made me look up the definitions.
All one big accident waiting to happen...
RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS is defined in a different header to the structure.
The explanatory comment is in a 3rd file.
It would all be safer if lock->owner were atomic_long_t with a comment
that it was the waiting task_struct | RT_MUTEX_HAS_WAITERS.
Given the actual definition is rt_mutex_base_is_locked() even correct?
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
