Commit 7f3c7952 authored by Bart Van Assche's avatar Bart Van Assche Committed by Ingo Molnar

tools/lib/lockdep: Rename "trywlock" into "trywrlock"

This patch avoids that the following compiler warning is reported while
compiling the lockdep unit tests:

include/liblockdep/rwlock.h: In function 'liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywlock':
include/liblockdep/rwlock.h:66:9: warning: implicit declaration of function 'pthread_rwlock_trywlock'; did you mean 'pthread_rwlock_trywrlock'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
  return pthread_rwlock_trywlock(&lock->rwlock) == 0 ? 1 : 0;
         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         pthread_rwlock_trywrlock
Signed-off-by: default avatarBart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>
Cc: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc: johannes.berg@intel.com
Cc: tj@kernel.org
Fixes: 5a52c9b4 ("liblockdep: Add public headers for pthread_rwlock_t implementation")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181207011148.251812-6-bvanassche@acm.orgSigned-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 2b28a860
...@@ -60,10 +60,10 @@ static inline int liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_ ...@@ -60,10 +60,10 @@ static inline int liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_
return pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock(&lock->rwlock) == 0 ? 1 : 0; return pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock(&lock->rwlock) == 0 ? 1 : 0;
} }
static inline int liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywlock(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock) static inline int liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywrlock(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock)
{ {
lock_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, 0, 1, NULL, (unsigned long)_RET_IP_); lock_acquire(&lock->dep_map, 0, 1, 0, 1, NULL, (unsigned long)_RET_IP_);
return pthread_rwlock_trywlock(&lock->rwlock) == 0 ? 1 : 0; return pthread_rwlock_trywrlock(&lock->rwlock) == 0 ? 1 : 0;
} }
static inline int liblockdep_rwlock_destroy(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock) static inline int liblockdep_rwlock_destroy(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock)
...@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static inline int liblockdep_rwlock_destroy(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock) ...@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static inline int liblockdep_rwlock_destroy(liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_t *lock)
#define pthread_rwlock_unlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_unlock #define pthread_rwlock_unlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_unlock
#define pthread_rwlock_wrlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_wrlock #define pthread_rwlock_wrlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_wrlock
#define pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock #define pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_tryrdlock
#define pthread_rwlock_trywlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywlock #define pthread_rwlock_trywrlock liblockdep_pthread_rwlock_trywrlock
#define pthread_rwlock_destroy liblockdep_rwlock_destroy #define pthread_rwlock_destroy liblockdep_rwlock_destroy
#endif #endif
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment