Re: Sanity check input and serialize vcpu data in sched_rt.c

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:23:46AM -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
> 2014-10-29 6:06 GMT-04:00 Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>:
> > On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 10:16 -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
> >> These two patches are to solve the issues found by Jan Beulich at http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg03554.html.
> >>
> >> The solution is summarized by Dario Faggioli at http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg03603.html.
> >>
> >> Here is the solution:
> >>      - sanity checking input params in rt_dom_cntl()
> >>      - serialize rt_dom_cntl() itself against the global lock
> >>      - move the call to rt_update_deadline() from _alloc to _insert
> >>
> > Ok, thanks Meng for the patches, and for this summary.
> 
> Thank you very much for your comments!
> 
> >
> > I've already reviewed the patches, and they look fine to me. If I can
> > add a few things about the submission:
> >  - threading is ok this time, good job with that :-D
> >  - cover letter subject summarizes properly the series content, but
> >    should contain the [PATCH xxx xxx] prefix as regular patches, as if
> >    it were patch 0 of the series
> 
> I will do that next time. I used the git send-email --compose to
> compose the cover letter. Next time I will add the prefix for the
> cover letter. :-)
> 
> >  - since this is v2, it is really useful to include, in each patch, a
> >    quick summary of what changed wrt previous version. You usually do it
> >    in the changelog of each patch itself, after a "---" mark, below the
> >    Signed-off and similar tags
> >
> 
> Got it. The version 1 does not split the patch into two smaller
> patches and is not properly threaded (I sent the patch as a reply to
> your comment in the rtds scheduler patch.). So I labeled this one as
> version 2 to distinguish with that.
> 
> > Finally, since we're in freeze, we should 'convince' Konrad that these
> > patches really need to be merged right now, instead of waiting for 4.6.
> >
> > See Konrad's development update emails for more details. About that,
> > Konrad, my take is as follows:
> >  - this is a bugfix, so, always a good one to have :-)
> >  - this only touches the new scheduler's code, with basically zero
> >    chances of causing issues to others
> >  - the new scheduler is marked as experimental
> 
> Yes! I totally agree. Thank you very much for your summary of the reasons. :-)

Release-Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> 
> >
> > So, yes, I think these patches should be considered for 4.5
> 
> Yes. :-)
> 
> Thank you very much!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Meng
> -----------
> Meng Xu
> PhD Student in Computer and Information Science
> University of Pennsylvania
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel