From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752715AbaFFFl0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 01:41:26 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:53506 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752554AbaFFFlZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Jun 2014 01:41:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 07:41:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Steven Rostedt cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Brad Mouring Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] rtmutex: Handle deadlock detection smarter In-Reply-To: <20140605211403.199fe580@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: References: <20140605152544.641846795@linutronix.de> <20140605152801.836501969@linutronix.de> <20140605211403.199fe580@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 5 Jun 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:28:32 -0000 > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > @@ -1112,7 +1134,8 @@ int rt_mutex_start_proxy_lock(struct rt_ > > return 1; > > } > > > > - ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, detect_deadlock); > > + /* We enforce deadlock detection for futexes */ > > + ret = task_blocks_on_rt_mutex(lock, waiter, task, 1); > > Why bother with passing in detect_deadlock then? > > Same goes for rt_mutex_finish_proxy_lock(). Because that's part of the cleanup series to remove it and I did not want mix stuff here.