[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190118160450.GG14054@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 17:04:50 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc: Hugo Lefeuvre <hle@....eu.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg Hartman <ghartman@...gle.com>,
Alistair Strachan <strachan@...gle.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: introduce wait_event_freezable_hrtimeout
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:19:41AM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> You should document the variable names in the header comments.
>
> Also, this new API appears to conflict with definition of 'freezable' in
> wait_event_freezable I think,
>
> wait_event_freezable - sleep or freeze until condition is true.
>
> wait_event_freezable_hrtimeout - sleep but make sure freezer is not blocked.
> (your API)
>
> It seems to me these are 2 different definitions of 'freezing' (or I could be
> completely confused). But in the first case it calls try_to_freeze after
> schedule(). In the second case (your new API), it calls freezable_schedule().
>
> So I am wondering why is there this difference in the 'meaning of freezable'.
> In the very least, any such subtle differences should be documented in the
> header comments IMO.
Also; someone was recently hating on the whole freezing thing (again,
and rightfully). I just cannot remember who; Rafael you remember?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists