* 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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
