[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3396.1521107922@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:58:42 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
david <david@...morbit.com>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched/wait_bit: Introduce wait_var_event()/wake_up_var()
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > Argh, no no no.. That whole wait_for_atomic_t thing is a giant
> > > trainwreck already and now you're making it worse still.
Your patch description needs to say why this isn't a trainwreck when you
consider wait_for_atomic_t() to be one since it does things in a very similar
way.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists