From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261323AbVFAHzF (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:55:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261324AbVFAHzF (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:55:05 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:490 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261323AbVFAHy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2005 03:54:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 09:54:14 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Walker Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sdietrich@mvista.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, inaky.perez-gonzalez@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Abstracted Priority Inheritance for RT Message-ID: <20050601075414.GA25081@elte.hu> References: <1117594659.3798.18.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1117594659.3798.18.camel@dhcp153.mvista.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Daniel Walker wrote: > I've abstracted priority inheritance from the RT patch. I created pi.h > and pi.c that can be used by other structures that need priority > inheritance. I also added a config option CONFIG_PRIORITY_INHERITANCE > so that PI can be turned off . This could also be made completely > separate from the RT patch. i'd rather not slow things down by callbacks and other abstraction before seeing how things want to integrate in fact. Do we really need the callbacks? Ingo