From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261192AbVBZD0M (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261408AbVBZD0M (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:26:12 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.56]:23978 "EHLO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261192AbVBZDYb (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:24:31 -0500 Subject: Linux RT question - __up_mutex calling pi_setprio From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:24:22 -0500 Message-Id: <1109388262.1452.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Ingo, I have a couple of questions about __up_mutex in rt.c. I'm still using RT-V0.7.38-06 and this may have changed. I haven't checked. 1) can old_owner ever not be the same as current. IOW can a process unlock a lock owned by another process? 2) Is it really necessary to call pi_setprio on the old_owner (I guess if the previous question is true, then this would be too). If the process is unlocking a lock, I don't expect it to be also blocked on a lock so it would not need to iterate the priority list. Wouldn't just calling mutex_setprio be sufficient? Thanks, -- Steve