On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 23:24 -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 06/04/2014 05:26 PM, Jason Low wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 21:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> Please make them inline functions, also can we rename the SHOW_NO_WAITER > >> thing, because its not at all clear to me wtf it does; should it be > >> called: mutex_no_waiters() or somesuch? > > Okay, I can make them inline functions. I mainly added the macro to keep > > it consistent with the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER() check, but we can surely > > make this more clear. mutex_no_waiters() sounds fine, or perhaps > > something like mutex_has_no_waiters()? > > > > You can remove the MUTEX_SHOW_NO_WAITER macro as all the call sites are > to be replaced.
Sure. > I didn't check directly for unlocked count because of > fairness concern in my original patch, but I think checking directly for > unlocked count should be fine too. Can you elaborate on the "fairness concern"? In the current code, we're already directly checking for unlocked count in atomic_read(&lock->count) == 1 if that's what you're referring to. Thanks, Jason -- 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/
