Re: [PATCH] futex: use wake_up_process() instead of wake_up_state()

[Mike Galbraith]

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 <wangqing@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  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);
> >  }
> >
> >  /**
>