On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 14:32 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:12:05 +
> Jonathan Haws <jh...@sdl.usu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Adding linux-rt-users group to thread.
> > ____
> > From: Jonathan Ha
On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 14:32 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:12:05 +
> Jonathan Haws wrote:
>
> >
> > Adding linux-rt-users group to thread.
> > ____
> > From: Jonathan Haws
> > Sent: Mon
Adding linux-rt-users group to thread.
From: Jonathan Haws <jh...@sdl.usu.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 08:37
To: mi...@kernel.org; v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk; a...@arndb.de;
a...@linux-foundation.org; deepa.ker...@gmail.com
Cc: linux-
Adding linux-rt-users group to thread.
From: Jonathan Haws
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 08:37
To: mi...@kernel.org; v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk; a...@arndb.de;
a...@linux-foundation.org; deepa.ker...@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; t
to to ensure that it releases any
other locks it may be holding in a more timely manner. It is understood that
the task could have a lower priority when it wakes than when it was added to
the queue in this (unlikely) case.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws <jh...@sdl.usu.edu>
---
ipc/mqueue.c | 2
to to ensure that it releases any
other locks it may be holding in a more timely manner. It is understood that
the task could have a lower priority when it wakes than when it was added to
the queue in this (unlikely) case.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws
---
ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1
they made the change. That way, the code can be
> modified if
> circumstances change for why the code is the way it is. But without
> knowing
> why changes were done, new updates may not be made out of fear for
> breaking
> something they don't understand.
>
Right - I'll shor
they made the change. That way, the code can be
> modified if
> circumstances change for why the code is the way it is. But without
> knowing
> why changes were done, new updates may not be made out of fear for
> breaking
> something they don't understand.
>
Right - I'll shor
.
Thanks!
Jon
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws <jh...@sdl.usu.edu>
> ---
> ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
> index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
.
Thanks!
Jon
> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws
> ---
> ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
> index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
> @@ -546,7 +546,
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws <jh...@sdl.usu.edu>
---
ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static void wq_add(struct mqueue_inod
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Haws
---
ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static void wq_add(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr
---
ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static void wq_add(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr,
ewp->task = current;
---
ipc/mqueue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/ipc/mqueue.c b/ipc/mqueue.c
index 9649ecd..cb96db9 100644
--- a/ipc/mqueue.c
+++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static void wq_add(struct mqueue_inode_info *info, int sr,
ewp->task = current;
Hello all,
I'm looking at the file ipc/mqueue.c and I found what I believe to be a
bug, but I would love it if someone corrected me or confirmed this.
In the wq_add() function, it appears that the task is added to the wait
queue using the static priority, which I believe equates to the
Hello all,
I'm looking at the file ipc/mqueue.c and I found what I believe to be a
bug, but I would love it if someone corrected me or confirmed this.
In the wq_add() function, it appears that the task is added to the wait
queue using the static priority, which I believe equates to the
Can someone explain to me how message queues handle waking multiple
threads blocked on a single message queue?
My situation is I have multiple writers blocking on a full message
queue, each posting messages with priority equal to the thread
priority. I want to make sure they wake and post in
Can someone explain to me how message queues handle waking multiple
threads blocked on a single message queue?
My situation is I have multiple writers blocking on a full message
queue, each posting messages with priority equal to the thread
priority. I want to make sure they wake and post in
18 matches
Mail list logo
