On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 12:30:55PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:53:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:38:40PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > Le Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:29:02PM +0100, Valentin Schneider a écrit : > > > > The symbols relating to the CT_STATE part of context_tracking.state are now > > > > all prefixed with CT_STATE. > > > > > > > > The RCU dynticks counter part of that atomic variable still involves > > > > symbols with different prefixes, align them all to be prefixed with > > > > CT_DYNTICKS, as CT_DYNTICKS_MASK already is. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > It used to be that RCU extended quiescent state and dynticks enter/exit > > > were coupled. But this isn't the case anymore. Nowadays RCU stops watching > > > some time later after dynticks is entered. > > > > I knew that consolidation of atomic operations was too good to last... > > > > > I wonder if we shouldn't take advantage of that cleanup for a meaning that > > > really reflect that RCU stops watching from there. > > > > > > Paul what do you think? CT_EQS_IDX ? CT_RCUEQS_IDX? CT_RCUOFF_IDX? ...? > > > > "After what you just did? You can just RCU off!!!" > > > > Sorry, couldn't resist... > > > > I am having a hard time getting too excited about the name. I could > > suggest CT_RCU_WATCHING_IDX, but that isn't exactly the shortest > > possible name. > > I really like CT_RCU_WATCHING. It says everything. The _IDX isn't even > needed after all. What do you think? Works for me! Thanx, Paul
