On Wed, 2026-07-01 at 14:26 +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
On Fri, 2026-06-19 at 09:21 +0200, Nam Cao wrote:
quoted
-static void handle_sched_wakeup(void *data, struct task_struct *task)
+static void handle_sched_exit(void *data, bool is_switch)
{
- ltl_atom_pulse(task, LTL_WAKE, true);
+ ltl_atom_pulse(current, LTL_SCHEDULE_IN, true);
}
Well, this triggers also in a spurious schedule: current -> current, can
that be a problem? Otherwise you may either use sched_switch over next
sched_switch would obviously be in the wrong context.. Ignore that.
or pulse only if is_switch.
It probably isn't a big deal though, since there's no SLEEP prior.. But
we may want to avoid the noise.
Looks good overall.
Reviewed-by: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>
Thanks,
Gabriele