[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b298bca1-190f-48a2-8d2c-58d54b879c72@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 17:57:46 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Metin Kaya <metin.kaya@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] sched/rt: Clean up usage of rt_task()
On 6/4/24 16:42, Qais Yousef wrote:
> - (wakeup_rt && !dl_task(p) && !rt_task(p)) ||
> + (wakeup_rt && !realtime_task(p)) ||
I do not like bikeshedding, and no hard feelings...
But rt is a shortened version of realtime, and so it is making *it less*
clear that we also have DL here.
I know we can always read the comments, but we can do without changes
as well...
I would suggest finding the plural version for realtime_task()... so
we know it is not about the "rt" scheduler, but rt and dl schedulers.
-- Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists