From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
Message-ID: <20181010105710.GP5728@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20181009092434.26221-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
 <20181010123417.26c682ef@luca64>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, alessio.balsini@gmail.com,
        bristot@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
        andrea.parri@amarulasolutions.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        patrick.bellasi@arm.com, henrik@austad.us,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181010123417.26c682ef@luca64>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-rt-users.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:34:17PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> So, I would propose to make the proxy() function of patch more generic,
> and not strictly bound to mutexes. Maybe a task structure can contain a
> list of tasks for which the task can act as a proxy, and we can have a
> function like "I want to act as a proxy for task T" to be invoked when
> a task blocks?

Certainly possible, but that's something I'd prefer to look at after it
all 'works'. The mutex blocking thing doesn't require external
interfaces etc..