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.

Thanks and Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)