Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior

From	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior
Date	2017-02-10 19:30 +0100
Message-ID	<t9o7f-73R-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <t5o5Q-6Mu-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6Org-3Ei-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <t6PdE-4aP-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <t9nXB-6ZO-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <t9nXB-6ZO-37@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 2017-02-10 10:09:29 [-0800], Andy Ritger wrote:
> Is the
> 
>     WARN_ON(rt_mutex_is_locked(lock));
> 
> in rt_mutex_destroy() valuable in non-CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES kernels,
> such that it would be better to always call it, and not noop away mutex_destroy()
> non-CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES kernels?  I thought that was your objection to
> Alex's original patch.

It kind of was…
So first I removed the GPL symbol. Then I wasn't too happy about it
especially since it was not introduced as part of RT. So I reverted that
changed and aligned with mainline behaviour (the mutex_rt.h hunk). But
then I noticed that with CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES=n and
CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES=y we still have a regression compared to !RT and
this was the initial motivation to fix things.
Then I got curious why mutex_lock() (which is essential rt_mutex_lock())
works and noticed the wrapper around it. And while looking at it I
decided to go back to strip the GPL part from export symbol instead of
adding a wrapper. And here I am.
Then I was looking at the patch and decided to align with mainline (and
keep that one hunk) in case Ingo ask for his GPL symbol.

> Thanks,
> - Andy
Sebastian

Thread

Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-02-03 17:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Andy Ritger <aritger@nvidia.com> - 2017-02-03 17:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Andy Ritger <aritger@nvidia.com> - 2017-02-10 19:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-02-10 19:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Alex Goins <agoins@nvidia.com> - 2017-02-10 20:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2017-02-11 19:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-02-11 21:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-02-10 19:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-13 12:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2017-02-13 14:30 +0100

csiph-web