From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752729AbbBQRoq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:44:46 -0500
Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:44525 "EHLO
	Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751726AbbBQRoo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:44:44 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:44:19 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch -rt 1/2] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq
Message-ID: <20150217174419.GY26177@linutronix.de>
References: <20150114171251.882318257@redhat.com>
 <20150114171459.593877145@redhat.com>
 <20150116114846.4e7b718d@gandalf.local.home>
 <20150119144100.GA10794@amt.cnet>
 <20150120054653.GA6473@iris.ozlabs.ibm.com>
 <20150120131613.009903a0@gandalf.local.home>
 <20150121150716.GD11596@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
In-Reply-To: <20150121150716.GD11596@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-Key-Id: 97C4700B
X-Key-Fingerprint: 09E2 D1F3 9A3A FF13 C3D3  961C 0688 1C1E 97C4 700B
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

* Peter Zijlstra | 2015-01-21 16:07:16 [+0100]:

>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 01:16:13PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> I'm actually wondering if we should just nuke the _interruptible()
>> version of swait. As it should only be all interruptible or all not
>> interruptible, that the swait_wake() should just do the wake up
>> regardless. In which case, swait_wake() is good enough. No need to have
>> different versions where people may think do something special.
>> 
>> Peter?
>
>Yeah, I think the lastest thing I have sitting here on my disk only has
>the swake_up() which does TASK_NORMAL, no choice there.

what is the swait status in terms of mainline? This sounds like it
beeing worked on.
I could take the series but then I would drop it again if the mainline
implementation changes…

Sebastian