Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem-spinlock: Cleanup down_read()

[Ingo Molnar]

* Davidlohr Bueso <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ... when returning from a successful lock acquisition. The horror!
> 
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> index 2c93571..07e456c 100644
> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.c
> @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ void __sched __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  		/* granted */
>  		sem->count++;
>  		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sem->wait_lock, flags);
> -		goto out;
> +		return;
>  	}
>  
>  	tsk = current;
> @@ -155,8 +155,6 @@ void __sched __down_read(struct rw_semaphore *sem)
>  	}
>  
>  	tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> - out:
> -	;
>  }

It following an existing 'out' pattern found elsewhere in the 
file - I don't think there's much wrong about that per se - 
especially in locking code we try to not return from the middle 
of the flow.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/