On Wed, 2026-07-01 at 14:26 +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> On Fri, 2026-06-19 at 09:21 +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
> > -static void handle_sched_wakeup(void *data, struct task_struct *task)
> > +static void handle_sched_exit(void *data, bool is_switch)
> > {
> > - ltl_atom_pulse(task, LTL_WAKE, true);
> > + ltl_atom_pulse(current, LTL_SCHEDULE_IN, true);
> > }
>
> Well, this triggers also in a spurious schedule: current -> current, can
> that be a problem? Otherwise you may either use sched_switch over next
sched_switch would obviously be in the wrong context.. Ignore that.
> or pulse only if is_switch.
>
> It probably isn't a big deal though, since there's no SLEEP prior.. But
> we may want to avoid the noise.
>
> Looks good overall.
>
> Reviewed-by: Gabriele Monaco <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks,
> Gabriele
