Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:28 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> > Group, Ingo Molnar, etc,
> >
> > Why does the rt sched_class contain fewer elements than fair?
> > missing is the RT for .task_new.
>
> No class specific initialization needs to be done for RT tasks.
>
> -Mike
Mike, et al,
one time: I was told that this group likes bottom posts.
The logic of class independent code calling class
scheduling dependent code, assumes that all functions
are in ALL the class dependent sections.
Minimally, if I agree with your above statement, I would assume
that the function should still exist as a null type function. However,
in reality, alot of RT class specific init is done. Just currently
none of it is done in this non-existant function.
Mitchell Erblich
On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 11:10 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> However,
> in reality, alot of RT class specific init is done. Just currently
> none of it is done in this non-existant function.
Patch?
* Mitchell Erblich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:28 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> > > Group, Ingo Molnar, etc,
> > >
> > > Why does the rt sched_class contain fewer elements than fair?
> > > missing is the RT for .task_new.
> >
> > No class specific initialization needs to be done for RT tasks.
> >
> > -Mike
>
>
> Mike, et al,
>
> one time: I was told that this group likes bottom posts.
( Mike did not top-post, so why this comment? )
> The logic of class independent code calling class scheduling
> dependent code, assumes that all functions are in ALL the class
> dependent sections.
>
> Minimally, if I agree with your above statement, I would assume
> that the function should still exist as a null type function.
> However, in reality, alot of RT class specific init is done. Just
> currently none of it is done in this non-existant function.
your original claim and these additional claims are both incorrect. What
Mike said is true: there is nothing "missing", RT class tasks do not
need any extra setup over what they already receive from the generic
function. A NULL pointer for sched_class->task_new means: "do default
setup, no class-specific setup needed". If you disagree with what we say
then please send a fix-patch or quote the specific code that is missing
something in your opinion.
Ingo