Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] locking/rwbase: Properly match set_and_save_state() to restore_state() | Date | Tue, 14 Sep 2021 09:31:27 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, Sep 09 2021 at 12:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Noticed while looking at the readers race. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/rwbase_rt.c > @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ static int __sched rwbase_write_lock(str > for (; atomic_read(&rwb->readers);) { > /* Optimized out for rwlocks */ > if (rwbase_signal_pending_state(state, current)) { > - __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > + rwbase_restore_current_state();
Right, that's functionally equivalent and makes the code more consistent.
Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
| |