Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1383406
| From | Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks |
| Date | 2016-04-20 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rq0FZ-fr-25@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rnNMR-Ww-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnNMR-Ww-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rq0cV-8rY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> + /* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */
>> struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost;
>> + struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy;
>> struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
>> {
>> + if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> + return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy,
>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task;
>> }
> why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff?
I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you think task_struct is better.
Regards,
Xunlei
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-04-20 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> - 2016-04-20 15:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> - 2016-04-22 05:30 +0200
csiph-web