On 19/07/16 10:57, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 10:39 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
>> <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>> If you're saying that this discrepancy between rqd->idle's and
>>> rqd->smt_idle's semantic is, at minimum, unideal, I do agree... but
>>> I
>>> think, for now at least, it's worth living with it.
>> I hadn't actually said anything, but you know me well enough to guess
>> what I'm thinking. :-)  
>>
> Hehe. :-)
> 
>> I am somewhat torn between feeling like the
>> inconsistency and as you say, the fact that this is a distinct
>> improvement and it would seem a bit petty to insist that you either
>> wait or produce a patch to change idle at the same time.
>>
> If we go ahead, I sign up for double checking and, if possible, fixing
> the inconsistency.
> 
>> But I do think that the difference needs to be called out a bit
>> better.  
>>
> Yes, I was about to re-replying saying "perhaps we should add a comment
> about this".
> 
>> What about folding in something like the attached patch?
>>
> I'd be totally fine with this.

Do you mean you ack me folding in that particular patch (so that the
resulting commit looks like the attached)?

 -George