Le Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 12:53:03PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney a écrit : > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 03:38:40PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Le Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:29:02PM +0100, Valentin Schneider a écrit : > > > The symbols relating to the CT_STATE part of context_tracking.state are > > > now > > > all prefixed with CT_STATE. > > > > > > The RCU dynticks counter part of that atomic variable still involves > > > symbols with different prefixes, align them all to be prefixed with > > > CT_DYNTICKS, as CT_DYNTICKS_MASK already is. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <[email protected]> > > > > It used to be that RCU extended quiescent state and dynticks enter/exit > > were coupled. But this isn't the case anymore. Nowadays RCU stops watching > > some time later after dynticks is entered. > > I knew that consolidation of atomic operations was too good to last... > > > I wonder if we shouldn't take advantage of that cleanup for a meaning that > > really reflect that RCU stops watching from there. > > > > Paul what do you think? CT_EQS_IDX ? CT_RCUEQS_IDX? CT_RCUOFF_IDX? ...? > > "After what you just did? You can just RCU off!!!" > > Sorry, couldn't resist... > > I am having a hard time getting too excited about the name. I could > suggest CT_RCU_WATCHING_IDX, but that isn't exactly the shortest > possible name.
I really like CT_RCU_WATCHING. It says everything. The _IDX isn't even needed after all. What do you think? Thanks. > Thanx, Paul
