Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932520Ab0KLTXN (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:23:13 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:49442 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756825Ab0KLTXK (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:23:10 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=NFUeGz0loTdi/T6hXKngYYtckjed7x3pKvNOqmBBK18= c=1 sm=0 a=1jCsSUyidw0A:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=ZnvJaOifsQVlnLHOAJ0A:9 a=UFPmwqG6N55Ich9uJpGwi3vhQNcA:4 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/22] sched: add extended scheduling interface From: Steven Rostedt To: Raistlin Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Chris Friesen , oleg@redhat.com, Frederic Weisbecker , Darren Hart , Johan Eker , "p.faure" , linux-kernel , Claudio Scordino , michael trimarchi , Fabio Checconi , Tommaso Cucinotta , Juri Lelli , Nicola Manica , Luca Abeni , Dhaval Giani , Harald Gustafsson , paulmck In-Reply-To: <1289589549.6525.720.camel@Palantir> References: <1288333128.8661.137.camel@Palantir> <1288333622.8661.141.camel@Palantir> <1289579924.12418.404.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1289580222.2084.318.camel@laptop> <1289580772.12418.405.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <1289589549.6525.720.camel@Palantir> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:23:07 -0500 Message-ID: <1289589787.12418.444.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1030 Lines: 32 On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:19 +0100, Raistlin wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 11:52 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > No, some of the bits in 18/22 come near, but I'd prefer not to add such > > > things until we've got a convincing use-case. > > > > I'm fine with that, but I would like to know if the ABI would be able to > > add such an extension in the future if we find a convincing use-case. > > > Scared about ABIs' stability eh? :-PP Nah, why should I be? ;-) > > BTW, in this case everything should be fine, since the very exact > behaviour you described was triggered by a (couple of) flag(s), which > can be added and dealt with during sched_setscheduler2() at any time. Yep. > > As Peter was saying, see patch 18 for details. I'm slowly getting there ;-) -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/