On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 09:15:24PM -0800, Darren Hart wrote: > > As a follow-on, I think it might be worthwhile to create a symmetrical > get_pi_state() to the put_pi_state(), rather than handling the atomic_inc > directly. > > And finally, while the break; in futex_requeue works, that function is quite > long and an explicit out_put_pi_state: label would make the intention clear > and > also avoid inadvertently breaking the implicit behavior of the break. >
And while prototyping these changes, I've changed my mind, neither is a worthwhile change. The plist_for_each in futex_requeue really isn't that long and the breaks occur in a logical way and are now well documented with this series. An inadvertent change to this behavior seems unlikely. There is only one open coded atomic_inc in futex.c for the pi_state refcount, hardly worth a wrapper. Regards, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
