On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 09:27:27AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: ... > >> @@ -1408,7 +1409,6 @@ static struct task_struct *scx_task_iter > >> /** > >> * scx_task_iter_next_locked - Next non-idle task with its rq locked > >> * @iter: iterator to walk > >> - * @include_dead: Whether we should include dead tasks in the iteration > >> * > >> * Visit the non-idle task with its rq lock held. Allows callers to specify > >> * whether they would like to filter out dead tasks. See scx_task_iter_start() > >> @@ -3132,6 +3132,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_task_scx > >> * scx_prio_less - Task ordering for core-sched > >> * @a: task A > >> * @b: task B > >> + * @in_fi: in forced idle state > > > > in_fi is currently not used / not passed to ops.core_sched_before(), should > > we metion this? Like appending (unused) or similar to the description? > > Hi Andrea, > I'm not sure that anyone would update that comment if it did become used ;( > so I think it's OK not to mention that. Yeah, good point (sadly). Then the patch looks good as it is to me. :) -Andrea
