[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aOV7lHUhn3BnViKT@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 10:44:04 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, longman@...hat.com, hannes@...xchg.org,
mkoutny@...e.com, void@...ifault.com, arighi@...dia.com,
changwoo@...lia.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
sched-ext@...ts.linux.dev, liuwenfang@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] sched: Match __task_rq_{,un}lock()
On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 12:44:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In preparation to adding more rules to __task_rq_lock(), such that
> __task_rq_unlock() will no longer be requivalent to rq_unlock(),
^
typo
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists