[patch 0/4] rtmutex: Plug unlock vs. requeue race

From	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	[patch 0/4] rtmutex: Plug unlock vs. requeue race
Date	2016-11-30 22:10 +0100
Message-ID	<sJkiB-2NQ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

The following series plugs a subtle race and robustifies the code
further. Aside of that it adds commentry about lockless operations and
removes a confusing extra define.

Thanks,

	tglx

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[patch 0/4] rtmutex: Plug unlock vs. requeue race Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-30 22:10 +0100
  [patch 4/4] rtmutex: Explain locking rules for  rt_mutex_proxy_unlock()/init_proxy_locked() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-30 22:10 +0100
    [tip:locking/core] locking/rtmutex: Explain locking rules for  rt_mutex_proxy_unlock()/init_proxy_locked() tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2016-12-02 12:20 +0100
  [patch 2/4] rtmutex: Use READ_ONCE() in rt_mutex_owner() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-30 22:10 +0100
    [tip:locking/core] locking/rtmutex: Use READ_ONCE() in  rt_mutex_owner() tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2016-12-02 11:50 +0100
  Re: [patch 0/4] rtmutex: Plug unlock vs. requeue race Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-01 19:40 +0100

csiph-web