From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793980315; b=2VgB/U61YOQGAkJuw3/LWzRMr2pgU92qEov9fqe5WdLZZH4gIpMFtnJavi9jOfMKnjKH AOV5zLWOKAj9MOEecbDdKGBNSjpgM08hEpHCimqRAEgt3uop8+UJowjC8m/gMKg5nInDe azuCcuIrbkUL1BH0/iwL40JZ+1+/dS0KTMA4Ka/4Id8b8wcAHgAZUghwRjL0iEZsYUG4U tSoJ2UZKPoAZlg4JiLlQHsPT2Hscpb4jFCxNw1IV0PZV73xmSLd8W+bGLgmTMS9EevhG5 vI3ccNxE76+UXzAU1R3+wV6S+iSvqpfEbsEHvbsoSnozC7Jm3as3bnxxfW7vw+I4d/Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793980315; h=Received:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:From:Subject:Reply-To:To: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date; bh=91JI+yvUQ5ZY1tTORn4r2SloSv4vb/kr9Y1CPLV/xfc=; b=Jwqn/nQWf6ZDxWh+o9xMlu12TIvAgh8QgcDbNAB0gG7WWG4F//VG9PUodIY7VdSNIbE4 rShsnwiJSqnsb5vH3xPlHL/2dcSoFqg5zpTQZglYvpGS6+7uA2jNCb2UEU63ahiYzXd0A FjrY0gtGd6BYj1yrGfW8+892KDv+g3fTCr6tVsXYZQ4hNDx004qyYadCua6dYxSjCgS1x rXnhcxKCFn2HEvQfjJMN9aykzyjRh5V75tMQOddl68jxLfa9HQe9qXJTBpi1irNz6aGwY ZO36eXfNMdsNmcf7vFl9mn30lcEelR/2V26IaBICmCeK2BaJ/PBVUE7Ht/jCUC1rBPg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=EZEnWpzK; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=100.103.45.18 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D155C606A329 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 15:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=EZEnWpzK Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 28D8E1F008A1; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 15:51:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1793980314; bh=91JI+yvUQ5ZY1tTORn4r2SloSv4vb/kr9Y1CPLV/xfc=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=EZEnWpzKPUWcZSo26EUNQr3TpIk8HHRiYo7v4xvqc6VkzovmuE2wbMCy+G0oCaKZ2 eqBEhr874gf+YAEpHdFjzyTZLBLXifYmqRLVsiFGU2O2iWUOEX9ekBFd+UwVzui5HV RHDUwuCZvxlF03yzxGX/7cEHFldpReyj9KeKS3kyrbJCIPvHT1zYaA4Q9MFm4N1/W+ 8mvblaXr8+Qem9DhV0nYVY+ramZ9fbfCdRPqvd1SubHcn0bhi5xTiOQL66NvzoVMjK HxXLHKPNs1+lQTLdjDt3rXnD2DIzDnKOdyh4UjK9AZGx7RJLLmXGcTemx899FhKGy4 r6FzKJrkDDAYA== Message-ID: From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/20 v3] sched/fair: Support not wakeup case in select_idle_sibling Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Vincent Guittot" , sched-ext@lists.linux.dev In-Reply-To: <20261106151947.3991524-13-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> References: <20261106151947.3991524-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20261106151947.3991524-13-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 15:51:53 +0000 X-Mailing-List: sched-ext@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue to consider: - [Low] sched/fair: kernel-doc parameter mismatch for @rq in idle_rq_without() -- commit ab3889b91b4dc4e984d6982f09014756fc8d7899 Author: Vincent Guittot sched/fair: Support not wakeup case in select_idle_sibling This commit updates choose_idle_cpu() to check whether a runqueue would be idle without an already-enqueued task p, and renames idle_cpu_without() to idle_rq_without() to take a struct rq pointer. > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index f2a0d2c2bb632..980eda9c935a8 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c [ ... ] > @@ -12968,23 +12985,21 @@ static unsigned int task_running_on_cpu(int cpu= , struct task_struct *p) > } > =20 > /** > - * idle_cpu_without - would a given CPU be idle without p ? > + * idle_rq_without - would a given CPU be idle without p ? > * @cpu: the processor on which idleness is tested. > * @p: task which should be ignored. > * > * Return: 1 if the CPU would be idle. 0 otherwise. > */ > -static int idle_cpu_without(int cpu, struct task_struct *p) > +static int idle_rq_without(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) [Severity: Low] Should the kernel-doc comment for idle_rq_without() document @rq instead of @cpu to match the updated parameter list and avoid W=3D1 kernel-doc warnings? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261106151947.3991= 524-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org?part=3D12