From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S943033AbdAJTim (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:38:42 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55609 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S942858AbdAJThp (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:37:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:37:36 -0800 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] sched: Introduce rcuwait Message-ID: <20170110193736.GA10639@linux-80c1.suse> References: <1482426096-12792-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net> <20170109182608.GA25787@linux-80c1.suse> <20170110183547.GB32298@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170110183547.GB32298@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 10 Jan 2017, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >Well, speaking of naming, rcuwait_trywake() doesn't look good to me, >rcuwait_wake_up() looks better, "try" is misleading imo. But this is >cosmetic/subjective too. I actually added the 'try' on second thought -- in that for the particular pcpu-rwsem user, obviously most of the time the wakeup will not actually occur. But yeah, I'd have no problem just naming it rcuwait_wake_up(). >Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov Thanks!