Re: [PATCH RFC 03/26] sched: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair

2017-06-30 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:31:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, > > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a

Re: [PATCH RFC 03/26] sched: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair

2017-06-30 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 2:01 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, > and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock > pair. This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait()

[PATCH RFC 03/26] sched: Replace spin_unlock_wait() with lock/unlock pair

2017-06-29 Thread Paul E. McKenney
There is no agreed-upon definition of spin_unlock_wait()'s semantics, and it appears that all callers could do just as well with a lock/unlock pair. This commit therefore replaces the spin_unlock_wait() call in do_task_dead() with spin_lock() followed immediately by spin_unlock(). This should be