Re: [RFC Patch 3/3] Fix formatting and misleading comments/variables in sedf

[Nate Studer <nate.studer@dornerworks.com>]

On 3/17/2014 12:49 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On ven, 2014-03-14 at 15:13 -0400, Nathan Studer wrote:
>> From: Nathan Studer <nate.studer@dornerworks.com>
>>
>> Update the sedf scheduler to correct some of the more aggregious formatting
>> issues.  Also update some of the misleading comments/variable names.
>> Specifically the sedf scheduler still implies that a domain and a vcpu
>> are the same thing, which while true in the past is no longer the case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nathan Studer <nate.studer@dornerworks.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Joshua Whitehead <josh.whitehead@dornerworks.com>
>>
> Both this and the previous patch looks fine, and, as said replying to
> the cover letter, are something I think we want.
> 
> I'd provide a formal Reviewed-by tag, but I guess it's not that
> important, as this is an RFC.... I'll do as soon as a non-RFC series
> will pop up.
> 
> One question, on what is this based? I tried to apply the series on
> today's tip, and it fails :-/

Did you apply the other two patches first?  This patch is dependent on the
previous two, since we did not want to clean-up more than we had to.

     Nate

> 
> This is what I get trying to apply the first patch:
> checking file xen/common/sched_sedf.c
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 25.
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 58 (offset -3 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 73 (offset -3 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 94 (offset -3 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 179 (offset -3 lines).
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 199.
> Hunk #7 succeeded at 205 with fuzz 2 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 221 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #9 succeeded at 303 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #10 succeeded at 313 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #11 succeeded at 402 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #12 succeeded at 441 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #13 succeeded at 461 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #14 succeeded at 503 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #15 succeeded at 513 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #16 succeeded at 525 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #17 succeeded at 540 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #18 succeeded at 575 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #19 succeeded at 600 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #20 succeeded at 609 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #21 succeeded at 627 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #22 succeeded at 641 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #23 succeeded at 667 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #24 succeeded at 678 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #25 succeeded at 710 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #26 succeeded at 730 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #27 succeeded at 781 (offset -12 lines).
> Hunk #28 succeeded at 894 (offset 69 lines).
> Hunk #29 FAILED at 842.
> Hunk #30 FAILED at 859.
> 4 out of 30 hunks FAILED
> 
> Can you provide an updated version?
> 
> Regards,
> Dario
>