Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:27:31 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     rcu@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@fb.com, mingo@kernel.org, jiangshanlai@gmail.com,
        dipankar@in.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, josh@joshtriplett.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, dhowells@redhat.com,
        edumazet@google.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 tip/core/rcu 01/22] sched/core: Add function to
 sample state of locked-down task
Message-ID: <20200320162731.GQ3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20200319001024.GA28798@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200319001100.24917-1-paulmck@kernel.org>
 <20200319132238.75a034c3@gandalf.local.home>
 <20200319173525.GI3199@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200320024943.GA29649@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
 <20200319230945.3f4701ed@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200319230945.3f4701ed@oasis.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:09:45PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020 19:49:43 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > The current setup is very convenient for the use cases thus far.  It
> > > allows the function to say "Yeah, I was called, but I couldn't do
> > > anything", thus allowing the caller to make exactly one check to know
> > > that corrective action is required.  
> > 
> > And here is another use case that led me to take this approach.
> > The trc_inspect_reader_notrunning() function in the patch below is passed
> > to try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() whose caller can continue testing
> > just the return value from try_invoke_on_locked_down_task() to work out
> > what to do next.
> > 
> > Thoughts?  Other use cases?
> 
> Note, I made this comment before looking at the use cases in the later
> patches. I was looking at it for a more generic purpose, but I'm not
> sure there is one.
> 
> It's fine as is for now.

Sounds good, and again thank you for looking this over!

							Thanx, Paul