On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:04:07PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote: > On 2016/04/07 at 02:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I would suggest doing the rt_mutex_postunlock() thing as a separate > > patch, it has some merit outside of these changes and reduces the total > > amount of complexity in this patch. > > I think the code change is necessary , as it avoids the invalid task_struct > access issue introduced by PATCH1. > > Do you mean just making the code refactor using rt_mutex_postunlock() > as a separate patch? or do I miss something? This, a separate patch that comes before this one. But no need to send that until you've received word from Thomas.
