Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -mm] update comment in rtmutex.c and friends | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Sun, 14 May 2006 01:39:36 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 19:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > The documented state in both the code and the rt-mutex.txt has a slight > incorrect statement. They state that if the owner of the mutex is NULL, > and the "mutex has waiters" bit is set that it is an invalid state. > > This is not true. To synchronize with an owner releasing the mutex, the > owner field must have the "mutex has waiters" bit set before trying to > grab the lock. This prevents the owner from releasing the lock without going > into the slow unlock path. But if the mutex doesn't have an owner, then > before the current process grabs the lock, it sets the "mutex has waiters" > bit. But in this case it will grab the lock and clear the bit. So the > "mutex has waiters" bit and owner == NULL is a transitional state. > > This patch comments this case. > > -- Steve > > > Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |