From e5cf395a54b44ad5f1a8b4af09d860a832fda90c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hendiadyoin1 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 14:58:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Kernel: Collapse blocking logic for exclusive Mutex' restore_lock() Clang-tidy pointed out that the `need_to_block = true;` block was duplicate, and if we collapse these if statements, we should do so fully. --- Kernel/Locking/Mutex.cpp | 8 ++------ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/Kernel/Locking/Mutex.cpp b/Kernel/Locking/Mutex.cpp index 663fc81759..7592e71ea0 100644 --- a/Kernel/Locking/Mutex.cpp +++ b/Kernel/Locking/Mutex.cpp @@ -329,12 +329,8 @@ void Mutex::restore_lock(Mode mode, u32 lock_count, [[maybe_unused]] LockLocatio switch (mode) { case Mode::Exclusive: { auto previous_mode = m_mode; - bool need_to_block = false; - if (m_mode == Mode::Exclusive && m_holder != current_thread) - need_to_block = true; - else if (m_mode == Mode::Shared && (m_shared_holders.size() != 1 || !m_shared_holders.contains(current_thread))) - need_to_block = true; - if (need_to_block) { + if ((m_mode == Mode::Exclusive && m_holder != current_thread) + || (m_mode == Mode::Shared && (m_shared_holders.size() != 1 || !m_shared_holders.contains(current_thread)))) { block(*current_thread, Mode::Exclusive, lock, lock_count); did_block = true; // If we blocked then m_mode should have been updated to what we requested