Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:20:01 +0800 | From | zhouchengming <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86/alternatives: Don't need text_mutex when text_poke() on UP |
| |
Oops, this is very wrong. Please ignore this patchset. Sorry for the noise...
Thanks!
On 2017/10/28 20:50, Zhou Chengming wrote: > The alternatives_smp_lock/unlock only be used on UP, so we don't > need to hold the text_mutex when text_poke(). Then in the next patch, > we can remove the outside smp_alt mutex too. > > Signed-off-by: Zhou Chengming<zhouchengming1@huawei.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c > index 8549269..5c3f593 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c > @@ -442,7 +442,6 @@ static void alternatives_smp_lock(const s32 *start, const s32 *end, > { > const s32 *poff; > > - mutex_lock(&text_mutex); > for (poff = start; poff< end; poff++) { > u8 *ptr = (u8 *)poff + *poff; > > @@ -452,7 +451,6 @@ static void alternatives_smp_lock(const s32 *start, const s32 *end, > if (*ptr == 0x3e) > text_poke(ptr, ((unsigned char []){0xf0}), 1); > } > - mutex_unlock(&text_mutex); > } > > static void alternatives_smp_unlock(const s32 *start, const s32 *end, > @@ -460,7 +458,6 @@ static void alternatives_smp_unlock(const s32 *start, const s32 *end, > { > const s32 *poff; > > - mutex_lock(&text_mutex); > for (poff = start; poff< end; poff++) { > u8 *ptr = (u8 *)poff + *poff; > > @@ -470,7 +467,6 @@ static void alternatives_smp_unlock(const s32 *start, const s32 *end, > if (*ptr == 0xf0) > text_poke(ptr, ((unsigned char []){0x3E}), 1); > } > - mutex_unlock(&text_mutex); > } > > struct smp_alt_module {
| |