[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v95db4vh.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:51:14 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 16/50] locking/rtmutex: Use rt_mutex_wake_q_head
On Wed, Jul 14 2021 at 10:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 05:11:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> + DEFINE_RT_MUTEX_WAKE_Q_HEAD(wqh);
>> - DEFINE_WAKE_Q(wake_q);
>
> The naming doesn't really line up nicely... Would DEFINE_RT_WAKE_Q()
> work?
Sure.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists