提交 e358c1a2 编写于 作者: N Nicolas Pitre 提交者: Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] mutex: some cleanups

Turn some macros into inline functions and add proper type checking as
well as being more readable.  Also a minor comment adjustment.
Signed-off-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Acked-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
上级 a58e00e7
......@@ -17,13 +17,14 @@
* it wasn't 1 originally. This function MUST leave the value lower than
* 1 even when the "1" assertion wasn't true.
*/
#define __mutex_fastpath_lock(count, fail_fn) \
do { \
if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0)) \
fail_fn(count); \
else \
smp_mb(); \
} while (0)
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, fastcall void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
fail_fn(count);
else
smp_mb();
}
/**
* __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval - try to take the lock by moving the count
......@@ -36,7 +37,7 @@ do { \
* or anything the slow path function returns.
*/
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, fastcall int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
if (unlikely(atomic_dec_return(count) < 0))
return fail_fn(count);
......@@ -59,12 +60,13 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
* __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() macro needs to return 1, it needs
* to return 0 otherwise.
*/
#define __mutex_fastpath_unlock(count, fail_fn) \
do { \
smp_mb(); \
if (unlikely(atomic_inc_return(count) <= 0)) \
fail_fn(count); \
} while (0)
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, fastcall void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
smp_mb();
if (unlikely(atomic_inc_return(count) <= 0))
fail_fn(count);
}
#define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() 1
......
......@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
*
* Generic implementation of the mutex fastpath, based on xchg().
*
* NOTE: An xchg based implementation is less optimal than an atomic
* NOTE: An xchg based implementation might be less optimal than an atomic
* decrement/increment based implementation. If your architecture
* has a reasonable atomic dec/inc then you should probably use
* asm-generic/mutex-dec.h instead, or you could open-code an
......@@ -22,14 +22,14 @@
* wasn't 1 originally. This function MUST leave the value lower than 1
* even when the "1" assertion wasn't true.
*/
#define __mutex_fastpath_lock(count, fail_fn) \
do { \
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1)) \
fail_fn(count); \
else \
smp_mb(); \
} while (0)
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_lock(atomic_t *count, fastcall void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
fail_fn(count);
else
smp_mb();
}
/**
* __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval - try to take the lock by moving the count
......@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ do { \
* or anything the slow path function returns
*/
static inline int
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
__mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, fastcall int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 0) != 1))
return fail_fn(count);
......@@ -64,12 +64,13 @@ __mutex_fastpath_lock_retval(atomic_t *count, int (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
* __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() macro needs to return 1, it needs
* to return 0 otherwise.
*/
#define __mutex_fastpath_unlock(count, fail_fn) \
do { \
smp_mb(); \
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 1) != 0)) \
fail_fn(count); \
} while (0)
static inline void
__mutex_fastpath_unlock(atomic_t *count, fastcall void (*fail_fn)(atomic_t *))
{
smp_mb();
if (unlikely(atomic_xchg(count, 1) != 0))
fail_fn(count);
}
#define __mutex_slowpath_needs_to_unlock() 0
......
Markdown is supported
0% .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
先完成此消息的编辑!
想要评论请 注册