Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched/swait: Convert to full exclusive mode

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] sched/swait: Convert to full exclusive mode
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 09:47:34 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzLNFO1za9-Lb=jxO_F9NS0jZyti+we=ycr5NTpgzdEbw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180612083449.100099222@infradead.org>

"
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:39 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> As mentioned by Linus, swait is exclusive mode and had better behave like it
> and be named like it.

Ack on the patches.

I do note how quilt emails are really hard to read, because that:

    Content-Disposition: inline

makes gmail think it's flowed.

Which works horribly badly for patches, surprise surprise.

So I really wish quilt wouldn't do that. It does smell like a gmail
bug, but at the same time, why would you use "Content-Disposition:
inline" when you don't have an actual multi-part email? So I do blame
quilt too for sending nonsensical headers.

(Yes, yes, I see the "It is permissible to use Content-Disposition on
the main body" in the RFC. But the RFC also makes it clear that it
actually matters for how things are presented, so saying "ok, I'll do
flowed" seems equally insane and equally technically RFC-compliant)

              Linus