From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun@kernel.org>,
Clark Williams <clrkwllms@kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Joel Granados <joel.granados@kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: Annotate API and implementation
Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 09:30:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260507073001.uivRw2RK@linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6b472fc2-2e52-40f2-9c37-81bfd70b9d96@acm.org>
On 2026-05-06 11:53:05 [+0200], Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 5/6/26 9:35 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > Hmm. This mostly reassembles __mutex_lock() from mutex.c which does the
> > same thing. Couldn't we get away doing the same thing meaning a
> > __cond_acquires() on those with a return value and a __acquire() in the
> > void case? I think it would make sense to keep those two close in terms
> > of annotations.
>
> Please take a look at the rt_mutex_lock() changes in the diff below.
So that warning keeps all trouble away and shouldn't trigger anyway.
Okay.
> Thanks,
>
> Bart.
Sebastian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-07 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-05 2:26 [PATCH v2] locking/rtmutex: Annotate API and implementation Bart Van Assche
2026-05-05 7:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-05 7:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-05 7:32 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-05 7:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-05 14:03 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-05 15:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-05 16:14 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-05 10:55 ` [tip: locking/core] " tip-bot2 for Bart Van Assche
2026-05-07 8:43 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-05-07 10:09 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-08 12:14 ` Nathan Chancellor
2026-05-08 14:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-08 16:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-05 16:12 ` [PATCH v2] " Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-05 20:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-06 7:35 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2026-05-06 9:53 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-07 7:30 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260507073001.uivRw2RK@linutronix.de \
--to=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=boqun@kernel.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=clrkwllms@kernel.org \
--cc=elver@google.com \
--cc=joel.granados@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox