Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 08:54:36 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
Cc: Seth Jennings <sjenning@redhat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>, live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/9] sched: move task rq locking functions to sched.h
Message-ID: <20150210145436.GB21643@treble.redhat.com>
References: <cover.1423499826.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <3f90fabd487411e694209447cf097fb0fbcce412.1423499826.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <54D9E1F1.5040604@hitachi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54D9E1F1.5040604@hitachi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1058
Lines: 25

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:48:17PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2015/02/10 2:31), Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Move task_rq_lock/unlock() to sched.h so they can be used elsewhere.
> > The livepatch code needs to lock each task's rq in order to safely
> > examine its stack and switch it to a new patch universe.
> 
> Hmm, why don't you just expose (extern in sched.h) those?

One reason was because task_rq_unlock was already static inline, and I
didn't want to un-inline it.  But that's probably a dumb reason, since I
inlined task_rq_lock and it wasn't inlined before.

But also, there are some other inlined locking functions in sched.h:
double_lock_balance, double_rq_lock, double_lock_irq, etc.  So it just
seemed to "fit" better there.

Either way works for me.  I'll ask some scheduler people.

-- 
Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/