On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:23:57PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > 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 Sebastian? -- 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
