From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Plans for the SEDF scheduler
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 16:01:48 +0100
Message-ID: <1432220508.10746.69.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1432211977.7907.86.camel@citrix.com>
	<555DD384.8040905@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1YvSdf-0003OY-8Q
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 15:44:03 +0000
In-Reply-To: <555DD384.8040905@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <Wei.Liu2@citrix.com>, Xi Sisu <xisisu@gmail.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Robbie VanVossen <robert.vanvossen@dornerworks.com>, Meng Xu <xumengpanda@gmail.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, "josh.whitehead" <josh.whitehead@dornerworks.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 13:45 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
[...]
> >  2. keep the field 'physically', but return warnings and errors when it 
> >     is used. This is a change in behavior, so also not really stable
> >     (but, hey, the scheduler is going away, the behavior will change,
> >     one way or another!)
> 
> I think this is probably the best option.

Agreed.

[...]
> I think given that it's been "going away" for 9 years, we should
> probably just remove it

Agreed.

>  and put it back if people complain.  (And if
> they really really can't use RTDS instead.)

Nah ;-)

Ian.