On Wed, 2026-11-04 at 10:43 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 04/11/2026 08:48, Philipp Stanner wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-11-04 at 08:33 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > I lost you here - what should the comment say? > > > > Just a "TODO: entity->rq_priority could not be fully removed due to the > > partial revert of the CFS scheduling rework. For formal correctness, it > > still has to be adjusted here". > > > > Just so that the reader sees that this is in an intermediate state > > right now, and so he's incentivized to git-blame the TODO to find the > > associated commits and mailing-list-archives. > > I would rather not do it in a patch with a Fixes: tag, or actually at > all - it feels arbitrary to sprinkle a TODO mentioning future work at a > single random place like set_priority(). Could we go with these two as > they are and continue from there?
Help me out here, I don't have the CFS series paged into my mind right now: Will future callers, after your redesign, make use of drm_sched_entity_set_priority()?
