On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 10:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 19:20 +0800, Wang Qing wrote:
> > > Why not just use wake_up_process().
> >
> > IMO this is not an improvement. There are other places where explicit
> > TASK_NORMAL is used as well, and they're all perfectly clear as is.
>
> Arguably those could all be converted to wake_up_process() as well.
> It's a very small kernel code size optimization. There's about 3 such
> places, could be converted in a single patch.
I still prefer the way it sits, but that's certainlyly a heck of a lot
better change justification than "why not" :)
-Mike
