From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752885AbdJTUZ1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:25:27 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58161 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281AbdJTUZ0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2017 16:25:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:25:24 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, wagi@monom.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] sched/swait: Annotate swait's special use Message-ID: <20171020202524.GN17331@wotan.suse.de> References: <20171020171346.24445-1-dave@stgolabs.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171020171346.24445-1-dave@stgolabs.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:13:46AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > We currently welcome using swait over wait whenever possible because > it is a slimmer data structure. However, Linus has made it very clear > that he does not want this used, unless under very specific rt scenarios > (such as current users). > > Update the comments before kernel hipsters start thinking swait is the > cool thing to do. > > Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso Thanks, I was busy. Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez Luis