On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 06:44:19PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * 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… Hi Sebastian, No, you would just adjust it to the upstream kernel interfaces, as the rest of the -rt users of the swait interfaces. Can you please include the series? Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
