Re: [patch V2 08/15] Documentation: Add lock ordering and nesting documentation

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 11:26:06AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:36:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> I agree that what I tried to express is hard to parse, but it's at least
> >> halfways correct :)
> >
> > Apologies!  That is what I get for not looking it up in the source.  :-/
> >
> > OK, so I am stupid enough not only to get it wrong, but also to try again:
> >
> >    ... Other types of wakeups would normally unconditionally set the
> >    task state to RUNNING, but that does not work here because the task
> >    must remain blocked until the lock becomes available.  Therefore,
> >    when a non-lock wakeup attempts to awaken a task blocked waiting
> >    for a spinlock, it instead sets the saved state to RUNNING.  Then,
> >    when the lock acquisition completes, the lock wakeup sets the task
> >    state to the saved state, in this case setting it to RUNNING.
> >
> > Is that better?
> 
> Definitely!
> 
> Thanks for all the editorial work!

NP, and glad you like it!

But I felt even more stupid sometime in the middle of the night.  Why on
earth didn't I work in your nice examples?  :-/

I will pull them in later.  Time to go hike!!!

							Thanx, Paul