futex: Enhance comments in futex_lock_pi() for blocking paths

... serves a bit better to clarify between blocking
and non-blocking code paths.

Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1435645562-975-2-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c
index c4a182f..153eb22 100644 (file)
--- a/kernel/futex.c
+++ b/kernel/futex.c
@@ -2268,8 +2268,11 @@ static long futex_wait_restart(struct restart_block *restart)
 /*
  * Userspace tried a 0 -> TID atomic transition of the futex value
  * and failed. The kernel side here does the whole locking operation:
- * if there are waiters then it will block, it does PI, etc. (Due to
- * races the kernel might see a 0 value of the futex too.)
+ * if there are waiters then it will block as a consequence of relying
+ * on rt-mutexes, it does PI, etc. (Due to races the kernel might see
+ * a 0 value of the futex too.).
+ *
+ * Also serves as futex trylock_pi()'ing, and due semantics.
  */
 static int futex_lock_pi(u32 __user *uaddr, unsigned int flags,
                         ktime_t *time, int trylock)
@@ -2300,6 +2303,10 @@ retry_private:
 
        ret = futex_lock_pi_atomic(uaddr, hb, &q.key, &q.pi_state, current, 0);
        if (unlikely(ret)) {
+               /*
+                * Atomic work succeeded and we got the lock,
+                * or failed. Either way, we do _not_ block.
+                */
                switch (ret) {
                case 1:
                        /* We got the lock. */