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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 36CFAC4332D for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 17:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7F2F20724 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 17:25:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="0uZasLyY" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D7F2F20724 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48l6wd09RKzDqQZ for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:25:21 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=srs0=ayf6=5g=paulmck-thinkpad-p72.home=paulmck@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=0uZasLyY; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48l6t45DPLzDrnP for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 04:23:08 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (50-39-105-78.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.105.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8AE9120767; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 17:23:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584811386; bh=xECwvu3Zm1NEgzqD5GrnBGLFCYYFmNZsamemFqiM8NY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=0uZasLyYOOcy2Jn3NQfpB2UAWhjp74rz1TUNHg9BhAjwPgKnZR60zmujqnihmxQ4W 7foxJjnQ0xMcW011TdKCXLYocZvyg8MDtNv8kWqj8WW3VxI5OcNV2Y2TQfkKR5STHK tsXIa2UPcdd8dIM4hV5/+BQQoln4Cxe0PVsX+CFA= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D6D435226C1; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:23:05 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting documentation Message-ID: <20200321172305.GW3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> References: <20200320160145.GN3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <87mu8apzxr.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200320210243.GT3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <874kuipsbw.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20200321022930.GU3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <875zeyrold.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <875zeyrold.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org Cc: Randy Dunlap , Peter Zijlstra , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Oleg Nesterov , Joel Fernandes , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , Logan Gunthorpe , Arnd Bergmann , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Steven Rostedt , Bjorn Helgaas , Kurt Schwemmer , Kalle Valo , Felipe Balbi , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, LKML , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , "David S. Miller" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:26:06AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > "Paul E. McKenney" writes: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:36:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> I agree that what I tried to express is hard to parse, but it's at least > >> halfways correct :) > > > > Apologies! That is what I get for not looking it up in the source. :-/ > > > > OK, so I am stupid enough not only to get it wrong, but also to try again: > > > > ... Other types of wakeups would normally unconditionally set the > > task state to RUNNING, but that does not work here because the task > > must remain blocked until the lock becomes available. Therefore, > > when a non-lock wakeup attempts to awaken a task blocked waiting > > for a spinlock, it instead sets the saved state to RUNNING. Then, > > when the lock acquisition completes, the lock wakeup sets the task > > state to the saved state, in this case setting it to RUNNING. > > > > Is that better? > > Definitely! > > Thanks for all the editorial work! NP, and glad you like it! But I felt even more stupid sometime in the middle of the night. Why on earth didn't I work in your nice examples? :-/ I will pull them in later. Time to go hike!!! Thanx, Paul