On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:06:46PM +0100, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > From: Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]> > > The function will be re-used in subsequent patches. > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> > Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Signed-off-by: Nicolai Hähnle <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/locking/mutex.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/mutex.c b/kernel/locking/mutex.c > index 0afa998..200629a 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/mutex.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/mutex.c > @@ -277,6 +277,13 @@ static __always_inline void > ww_mutex_lock_acquired(struct ww_mutex *ww, > ww_ctx->acquired++; > } > > +static inline bool __sched > +__ww_mutex_stamp_after(struct ww_acquire_ctx *a, struct ww_acquire_ctx *b)
Should it be ww_mutex_stamp or ww_acquire_stamp / ww_ctx_stamp? Nothing else operates on the ww_acquire_ctx without a ww_mutex so it might look a bit odd if it didn't use ww_mutex. Patch only does what it says on tin, so Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
