* Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > The idea is to allow call sites to supply the 'condition' function as
> > free-form C
> > code, while pushing everything else into non-macro form: there's a 'struct
> > wait_event_state' on stack, and a state machine. The waiting logic is
> > converted
> > from procedural form to a state machine, because we have to call out into
> > the
> > 'condition' code in different circumstances.
>
> Ok, I think the concept is fine, but you don't actually fix the
> problem with the locked version that needs to unlock (with irq
> versions etc) around the schedule.
Indeed it doesn't, yet.
> And using "bool" in a struct is disgusting and wrong, and hides the
> fact that the compiler will just turn it into "char" (or even "int"
> for platforms where "char'" is slow, like alpha).
>
> So it would be better with a "state" variable that just has fields, I suspect.
>
> .. and as mentioned, it doesn't actually fix the case that hit the
> signal_pending() problem.
>
> Honestly, I think my "pass in a waiter function" model was both less
> subtle and indirect, and more generic.
True!
> And we can actually *fix* the problem with it for 4.11, instead of
> adding the stupid header file includes.
Ok - I'm perfectly fine with your patch too, if you think it's v4.11 material!
Thanks,
Ingo
