From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754018AbZK0GQg (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:16:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751780AbZK0GQf (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:16:35 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:60834 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751855AbZK0GQe (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:16:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4B0F6EA9.6070105@kernel.org> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:16:09 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; ko-KR; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 SUSE/3.0b4-3.6 Thunderbird/3.0b4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Fr??d??ric Weisbecker , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 tip/sched/core] sched: rename preempt_notifier to sched_notifier and always enable it References: <20091126102936.GA1196@elte.hu> <1259231565.4273.31.camel@twins> <1259234619.4273.32.camel@twins> <20091126115605.GA15189@elte.hu> <1259239259.4273.82.camel@twins> <4B0F356B.3040206@kernel.org> <20091127045209.GA13914@elte.hu> <4B0F65DD.1090707@kernel.org> <20091127054621.GA25672@elte.hu> <4B0F6B32.4090401@kernel.org> <20091127061319.GA8620@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20091127061319.GA8620@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 11/27/2009 03:13 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> My position on this is rather clear: i want no new callbacks and no >>> changes to callbacks in the scheduler until this situation is cleaned >>> up. Five callback sites are _way_ too much - so if you want to add >>> callbacks or change them, please clean it up and improve it first. >> >> Even changes which cause no functional differences? [...] > > Such as enabling preempt notifiers unconditionally? That's a functional > change - it turns a so-far optional callback into an essentially > mandatory one. No, I'm not gonna do that. Just patches to reorganize code so that unnecessary conflicts won't occur. There will be NO functional changes. -- tejun