From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752103AbdFUR5M (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:57:12 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60584 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751125AbdFUR5L (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:57:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:57:08 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , peterz@infradead.org, oleg@redhat.com, josh@joshtriplett.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, jiangshanlai@gmail.com, paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] swait: add idle to make idle-hacks on kthreads explicit Message-ID: <20170621175708.GH21846@wotan.suse.de> References: <20170615184820.22994-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170620214548.6602-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20170621164846.GD3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170621164846.GD3721@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Luis