Re: [PATCH RT 2/2] rtmutex: Remove duplicate rt_mutex_init()

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

On 05/02/2014 03:12 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> This does not apply cleanly on v3.14-rt
> 
> That's because I sent this out before 3.14-rt was released :-)

Ach right. Sorry, my memory…

>>> --- a/include/linux/rtmutex.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/rtmutex.h
>>> @@ -62,25 +62,19 @@ struct hrtimer_sleeper;
>>> # define __DEBUG_RT_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(mutexname) \
>>> 	, .name = #mutexname, .file = __FILE__, .line = __LINE__
>>>
>>> -# define rt_mutex_init(mutex)					\
>>> -	do {							\
>>> -		raw_spin_lock_init(&(mutex)->wait_lock);	\
>>> -		__rt_mutex_init(mutex, #mutex);			\
>>> -	} while (0)
>>> -
>>
>> The macro is the same in CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES and the else path.
>> Shouldn't you remove both and define it before the ifdef?
> 
> That's exactly what the patch did! Except that it defined it *after* the ifdef.
> 
> Here's the patch again (as it was cut in the reply):
> 
> --- a/include/linux/rtmutex.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rtmutex.h
> @@ -62,25 +62,19 @@ struct hrtimer_sleeper;
>  # define __DEBUG_RT_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(mutexname) \
>  	, .name = #mutexname, .file = __FILE__, .line = __LINE__
>  
> -# define rt_mutex_init(mutex)					\
> -	do {							\
> -		raw_spin_lock_init(&(mutex)->wait_lock);	\
> -		__rt_mutex_init(mutex, #mutex);			\
> -	} while (0)
> -
>   extern void rt_mutex_debug_task_free(struct task_struct *tsk);
>  #else
>  # define __DEBUG_RT_MUTEX_INITIALIZER(mutexname)
>  
> +# define rt_mutex_debug_task_free(t)			do { } while (0)
> +#endif
> +
>  # define rt_mutex_init(mutex)					\
>  	do {							\
>  		raw_spin_lock_init(&(mutex)->wait_lock);	\
>  		__rt_mutex_init(mutex, #mutex);			\
>  	} while (0)
>  
> -# define rt_mutex_debug_task_free(t)			do { } while (0)
> -#endif
> -
>  #define __RT_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_PLAIN(mutexname) \
>  	.wait_lock = __RAW_SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(mutexname.wait_lock) \
>  	, .wait_list = PLIST_HEAD_INIT(mutexname.wait_list) \
> 
> Take special note of the movement of the "#endif".

Ah. That is the trick. So lets try it again…

> -- Steve

Sebastian