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

From	Alex Goins <agoins@nvidia.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH RT] Align rt_mutex inlining with upstream behavior
Date	2017-02-10 20:20 +0100
Message-ID	<t9oTE-7BA-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <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> <t9o7f-73R-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

This should work.

    Reviewed-by: Alex Goins <agoins@nvidia.com>

Thanks,
Alex

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

> 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