[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180315111915.GV4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 12:19:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: 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()
On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:58:42AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, still writing changelogs..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists