From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
RT-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>, Wargreen <wargreen@lebib.org>,
rt-stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch RT 1/4] rtmutex: Make lock_killable work
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:20:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170404092032.0c7b58dc@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170404071302.GB3093@worktop>
On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:13:02 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:21:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 01 Apr 2017 12:50:59 +0200
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Locking an rt mutex killable does not work because signal handling is
> > > restricted to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE.
> > >
> > > Use signal_pending_state() unconditionaly.
> >
> > Does this mean rt mutex killable is not INTERRUPTIBLE? because the
> > change log seems to just assume that.
>
> > > - if (unlikely(state == TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)) {
>
> #define TASK_KILLABLE (TASK_WAKEKILL | TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)
>
>
> I don't think we need to consider people who don't know where to find
> the TASK_state definitions.
No where in the change log did it mention TASK_KILLABLE. It only talked
about "rt mutex killable". Yeah, I can figure this out, but that
doesn't change that the fact that it was a weak change log.
Thomas has yelled at me for some of my change logs in the past that
were better than this ;-)
-- Steve
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-04 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-01 10:50 [patch RT 0/4] rwsem/rt: Lift the single reader restriction Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-01 10:50 ` [patch RT 1/4] rtmutex: Make lock_killable work Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-03 15:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-04-04 7:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-04-04 13:20 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2017-04-01 10:51 ` [patch RT 2/4] rtmutex: Provide rt_mutex_lock_state() Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-01 10:51 ` [patch RT 3/4] rtmutex: Provide locked slowpath Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-01 10:51 ` [patch RT 4/4] rwsem/rt: Lift single reader restriction Thomas Gleixner
2017-04-04 14:01 ` [patch RT 0/4] rwsem/rt: Lift the " Sebastian Siewior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170404092032.0c7b58dc@gandalf.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=julia@ni.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rt-stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wargreen@lebib.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).