On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 06:21 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2021-03-19 at 10:59 +0800, Wang Qing wrote: > > Using wake_up_process() is more simpler and friendly, > > and it is more convenient for analysis and statistics > > I likely needn't bother, and don't have a NAK to paste on this thing, > but here's another copy of my NOPE for yet another gratuitous change > with complete BS justification.
Let me try a bit softer tone. I think you're trying to help, but ignoring feedback is not the way to achieve that goal. My feedback was and remains that your change is not an improvement, it's churn, but more importantly, that changes require technical justification, which you did not provide. You were subsequently handed the justification you lacked by none other than the maintainer of the code you were modifying. He told you that your change could become a tiny kernel size optimization by converting like instances all in one patch.. which you promptly ignored, instead submitting multiple patches with zero justification. That is not the path to success. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Qing <wangq...@vivo.com> > > --- > > kernel/futex.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/futex.c b/kernel/futex.c > > index e68db77..078a1f9 > > --- a/kernel/futex.c > > +++ b/kernel/futex.c > > @@ -1820,7 +1820,7 @@ void requeue_pi_wake_futex(struct futex_q *q, union > > futex_key *key, > > > > q->lock_ptr = &hb->lock; > > > > - wake_up_state(q->task, TASK_NORMAL); > > + wake_up_process(q->task); > > } > > > > /** >