On Tue, Oct 20 2020 at 16:07, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:02:55 +0200 > Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > What I wrote wasn't exactly what I meant. What I meant to have: > > /* > * Since we are going to call schedule() anyways, there's > * no need to do the preemption check when the rq_lock is released. > */ > > That is, to document why we have the preempt_disable() before the unlock:
which is pretty obvious, but I let Peter decide on that.
