[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1854135.8TqAkcxCUf@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:01:20 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/wait: introduce wait_event_freezable_hrtimeout
On Friday, January 18, 2019 5:04:50 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
Nope.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists