On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 15:31 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Well, it was a good read and I'm rather happy that we agree on the > ww_ctx > thing (whatever it's called in the end), even though we have slightly > different reasons for it. Yeah, I tried various weirdness to get out from under it, but the whole progress/fairness thing made it rather hard. Ideally you'd be able to use some existing scheduler state since its the same goal, but the whole wakeup-retry muck makes that hard. > I don't really have a useful idea to make the retry handling for users > more rusty-compliant though, and I'm still unhappy with all current > naming > proposals ;-) Ah, naming,.. yeah I'm not too terribly attached to most of them. I just want to avoid something that's reasonably well known to mean something different. Furthermore, since we use the wound/wait symmetry breaking it would make sense for that to appear somewhere in the name. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
