On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 07:57:08PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:48:46AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 02:45:45PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > In this proper patch form I've made the non-timeout idle swait void.
> > > I've also integrated Paul's comment / ident changes, and added
> > > documentation
> > > as suggested by Boqun.
> > >
> > > Let me know if there are issue, otherwise, Paul feel free to take!
> >
> > Nice docbook comments! I replaced my modified commits with your new ones,
> > queued for further review and testing.
>
> Great thanks!
>
> > Just out of curiosity, why the three-line swait_event_idle() with the
> > "break" statement instead of the two-line version with the inverted
> > condition? (I am fine either way, just curious.)
>
> No strong reason -- just went with what swait.h already used before on
> similar condition before, in this case it follows swait_event() model.
> In the future it may be possible to share a very nasty macro for both
> but since that would involve using a helper function as an argument
> I deferred that at this point -- it'd be ugly.
Fair enough, works for me! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
