From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C224C4CEC9 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1788206C2 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2404523AbfIQHwN (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 03:52:13 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:40848 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727479AbfIQHwM (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 03:52:12 -0400 Received: from bigeasy by Galois.linutronix.de with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iA8HR-0005om-LX; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:52:09 +0200 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 09:52:09 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Scott Wood Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Paul E . McKenney" , Joel Fernandes , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Clark Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH RT v3 2/5] sched: Rename sleeping_lock to rt_invol_sleep Message-ID: <20190917075209.2utxzkleydg27fnm@linutronix.de> References: <20190911165729.11178-1-swood@redhat.com> <20190911165729.11178-3-swood@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190911165729.11178-3-swood@redhat.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org On 2019-09-11 17:57:26 [+0100], Scott Wood wrote: > It's already used for one situation other than acquiring a lock, and the > next patch will add another, so change the name to avoid confusion. I know it has been suggested but please don't rename it, keep it as is. The _only_ reason why you are having it is to avoid a RCU related warning. PeterZ asked if we could maybe utilize a task-state bit for this annotation instead. So I will look into this and change the mechanism that is used to something different if it is preferred over this one and you don't have to worry about it. Please use what is here at the moment. > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood Sebastian