Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org BC496601D7
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/mutex: Use mutex flags macro instead of hard
 code value
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1564397578-28423-1-git-send-email-mojha@codeaurora.org>
 <1564397578-28423-2-git-send-email-mojha@codeaurora.org>
 <20190729110727.GB31398@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a80972a1-8e24-33cb-0088-49ef0e680540@codeaurora.org>
 <20190730080308.GF31381@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <6b0fd5fd-b3e2-585e-286d-de8ed3c21e66@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 30 Jul 2019 18:10:49 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190730080308.GF31381@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 7/30/2019 1:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:23:13PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> On 7/29/2019 4:37 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:22:58PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>>>> Let's use the mutex flag macro(which got moved from mutex.c
>>>> to linux/mutex.h in the last patch) instead of hard code
>>>> value which was used in __mutex_owner().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@codeaurora.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/linux/mutex.h | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
>>>> index 79b28be..c3833ba 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
>>>> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ struct mutex {
>>>>     */
>>>>    static inline struct task_struct *__mutex_owner(struct mutex *lock)
>>>>    {
>>>> -	return (struct task_struct *)(atomic_long_read(&lock->owner) & ~0x07);
>>>> +	return (struct task_struct *)(atomic_long_read(&lock->owner) & ~MUTEX_FLAGS);
>>>>    }
>>> I would _much_ rather move __mutex_owner() out of line, you're exposing
>>> far too much stuff.
>> if i understand you correctly, you want me to move __mutex_owner() to
>> mutex.c
>> __mutex_owner() is used in mutex_is_locked() and mutex_trylock_recursive
>> inside linux/mutex.h.
>>
>> Shall i move them as well ?
> Yes, then you can make __mutex_owner() static.

To make it static , i have to export mutex_is_locked() after moving it 
inside mutex.c, so that other module can use it.

Also are we thinking of removing
static inline /* __deprecated */ __must_check enum 
mutex_trylock_recursive_enum
mutex_trylock_recursive(struct mutex *lock)

inside linux/mutex.h in future ?

As i see it is used at one or two places and there is a check inside 
checkpatch guarding its further use .

Thanks,
Mukesh


>
> Thanks!