Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] Refactoring sched_entity and sched_rt_entity.

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 19:11 +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > struct task_group {
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
> >       struct sched_entity **cfs_se;
> >       ...
> > #endif
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RT_GROUP_SCHED
> >       struct sched_entity **rt_se;
> >       ...
> > #endif
> > 
> > }
> > 
> Well, sure this can be done. But what about the common fields? I guess
> you're suggesting to use something like `struct sched_entity_common' and
> putting them there, aren't you?
> 
> If yes, I'm fine with that, although it'll add one more level of
> indirection for those fields (e.g., p->se.comm.on_rq). Are we cool with
> this? 

I'm pretty sure we're mis-understanding each other here, I meant to keep
two complete sched_entity structures (both containing the common/fair/rt
parts). That way, one can use the fair and the other the rt part.