lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting documentation
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:26:06AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:36:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> I agree that what I tried to express is hard to parse, but it's at least
> >> halfways correct :)
> >
> > Apologies! That is what I get for not looking it up in the source. :-/
> >
> > OK, so I am stupid enough not only to get it wrong, but also to try again:
> >
> > ... Other types of wakeups would normally unconditionally set the
> > task state to RUNNING, but that does not work here because the task
> > must remain blocked until the lock becomes available. Therefore,
> > when a non-lock wakeup attempts to awaken a task blocked waiting
> > for a spinlock, it instead sets the saved state to RUNNING. Then,
> > when the lock acquisition completes, the lock wakeup sets the task
> > state to the saved state, in this case setting it to RUNNING.
> >
> > Is that better?
>
> Definitely!
>
> Thanks for all the editorial work!

NP, and glad you like it!

But I felt even more stupid sometime in the middle of the night. Why on
earth didn't I work in your nice examples? :-/

I will pull them in later. Time to go hike!!!

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-21 18:24    [W:0.066 / U:2.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site