Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:19:36 -0700 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads explicit |
| |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:57:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:48:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > In this proper patch form I've made the non-timeout idle swait void. > > > I've also integrated Paul's comment / ident changes, and added documentation > > > as suggested by Boqun. > > > > > > Let me know if there are issue, otherwise, Paul feel free to take! > > > > Nice docbook comments! I replaced my modified commits with your new ones, > > queued for further review and testing. > > Great thanks! > > > Just out of curiosity, why the three-line swait_event_idle() with the > > "break" statement instead of the two-line version with the inverted > > condition? (I am fine either way, just curious.) > > No strong reason -- just went with what swait.h already used before on > similar condition before, in this case it follows swait_event() model. > In the future it may be possible to share a very nasty macro for both > but since that would involve using a helper function as an argument > I deferred that at this point -- it'd be ugly.
Fair enough, works for me! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |