On Wed, 2026-07-22 at 09:42 +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > Chao Liu <[email protected]> writes: > > > +static void handle_sched_waking(void *data, struct task_struct *task) > > > +{ > > > + if (in_task()) { > > > + if (current->prio > task->prio) > > > + ltl_atom_pulse(task, LTL_WOKEN_BY_LOWER_PRIO, > > > true); > > > > The implementation also reports wakeups from softirq context through > > WOKEN_BY_SOFTIRQ: > > > > > + } else if (in_serving_softirq()) { > > > + ltl_atom_pulse(task, LTL_WOKEN_BY_SOFTIRQ, true); > > > + } > > > > Should this description mention softirq wakeups as well? > > Technically, on RT kernel, softirq is a SCHED_OTHER task. On !RT kernel, > softirq can also be executed as a SCHED_OTHER task, which is the cause > for concern. > > But explicitly mentioning softirq does not hurt, I wouldn't oppose that.
Sounds good to me. So as far as I understand, this change is going to go through a separate patch right? I'm considering this series final. Thanks, Gabriele
