From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] Removed all code from sedf not needed for basic EDF functionality Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:06:48 +0200 Message-ID: <1405354008.29306.682.camel@Solace> References: <1404939348-4926-1-git-send-email-josh.whitehead@dornerworks.com> <1404939348-4926-2-git-send-email-josh.whitehead@dornerworks.com> <1405062327.29306.292.camel@Solace> <20140711195414.GM23257@laptop.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5456811847818034195==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140711195414.GM23257@laptop.dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Ian Campbell , Stefano Stabellini , George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , Robert VanVossen , Xen-devel , Nathan Studer , Josh Whitehead List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============5456811847818034195== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-vXWcC5LUDIcvMS9nposW" --=-vXWcC5LUDIcvMS9nposW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On ven, 2014-07-11 at 15:54 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:05:27AM +0200, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > On mer, 2014-07-09 at 16:55 -0400, Josh Whitehead wrote: > > > A large amount of code had been added to the sedf scheduler over the = years that > > > had made it everything but a "simple" EDF scheduler. > > > > > Indeed! :-) > >=20 > > > --- a/xen/common/sched_sedf.c > > > +++ b/xen/common/sched_sedf.c > > =20 > > > -#define EXTRA_NONE (0) > > > -#define EXTRA_AWARE (1) > > > -#define EXTRA_RUN_PEN (2) > > > -#define EXTRA_RUN_UTIL (4) > > > -#define EXTRA_WANT_PEN_Q (8) > > > -#define EXTRA_PEN_Q (0) > > > -#define EXTRA_UTIL_Q (1) > > > #define SEDF_ASLEEP (16) > > > > > As said when reviewing other patches in the series, do not limit to > > removing the flags, do also "renumber" the remaining one, instead of > > living it #defined to 16. > >=20 > > I can clearly see someone looking at the code rather puzzled about why, > > since there is only one flag, it is associated to the 5th bit! :-P > >=20 > > The rest of this patch looks fine to me. >=20 > Is that an 'Reviewed-by' or 'Acked-by' ? >=20 It's not, actually. I'll say it explicitly when that will be the case. BTW, given all the discussion about renaming/new file, etc., even if it were, it'd be pretty pointless at this stage, I think. Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-vXWcC5LUDIcvMS9nposW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEABECAAYFAlPEABgACgkQk4XaBE3IOsQ9BQCePtPpJLCp+5qwPfb1OvOu4Dzh rV0Anim90XLnfMRnixCb8S8TYnlK9GJ0 =ZCfD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-vXWcC5LUDIcvMS9nposW-- --===============5456811847818034195== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============5456811847818034195==--