Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched_ext: fix stale references in doc comments

[Tao Cui]

Hello, Tejun.

在 2026/8/13 02:38, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello, Tao.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 03:38:01PM +0800, Tao Cui wrote:
>> - * One user of this function is scx_bpf_dispatch() which can be called
>> + * One user of this function is scx_bpf_dsq_insert() which can be called
>>   * recursively as sub-sched dispatches nest. Always inline to reduce stack usage
>>   * from the call frame.
> 
> This one isn't a leftover of the scx_bpf_dispatch() rename.
> scx_bpf_dsq_insert() doesn't call scx_dispatch_sched() and can't nest.
> The comment is a typo for scx_bpf_sub_dispatch(), which a parent's
> ops.dispatch() calls to trigger dispatching on a child scheduler, so the
> calls nest as sub-scheds do. Please use scx_bpf_sub_dispatch() instead.
Ah, I wrongly assumed it was a rename leftover, thanks for the
explanation. scx_bpf_sub_dispatch() makes sense given the nesting. Will
fix these up and send a v2 rebased on sched_ext/for-7.3.
> 
>> 	 * - sleeping (%SCX_DEQ_SLEEP)
>> 	 * - being moved to another CPU
>> 	 * - being temporarily taken off the queue for an attribute change
>> -	 *   (%SCX_DEQ_SAVE)
> 
> SCX_DEQ_SAVE was never defined, but these dequeues are flagged with
> %SCX_DEQ_SCHED_CHANGE which ops.quiescent() does receive. Please replace
> the reference instead of dropping it.
> 
>> +	 * '_' and '.' chars. Exposed via
>> +	 * /sys/kernel/sched_ext/root/ops while the BPF scheduler is enabled.
> 
> @name applies to sub-schedulers too and they show it the same way under
> their own directories. Maybe something like "Exposed via the ops file in
> the scheduler's sysfs directory, /sys/kernel/sched_ext/root/ops for the
> root scheduler, while the BPF scheduler is enabled."
> 
> The first hunk no longer applies to sched_ext/for-7.3. Please base v2 on
> that branch.
> 
> Thanks.
>