From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755686AbaICI1I (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:27:08 -0400 Received: from mail3.unitn.it ([193.205.206.24]:54563 "EHLO mail3.unitn.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753530AbaICI1G (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 04:27:06 -0400 Message-ID: <5406D0D5.8030001@unitn.it> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:27:01 +0200 From: Luca Abeni User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Austad CC: Juri Lelli , Peter Zijlstra , rdunlap , Ingo Molnar , Dario Faggioli , Juri Lelli , LKML doc , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: fix terminology and improve clarity References: <1409220029-9002-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <1409220029-9002-2-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20140902211019.GA22581@sisyphus.home.austad.us> <5406B874.5040507@unitn.it> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/03/2014 09:45 AM, Henrik Austad wrote: [...] >> Summing up, the CBS[2,3] algorithms assigns scheduling deadlines to >>>> tasks so >>>> that each task runs for at most its runtime every period, avoiding any >>>> interference between different tasks (bandwidth isolation), while the >>>> EDF[1] >>>> - algorithm selects the task with the smallest scheduling deadline as >>>> the one >>>> + algorithm selects the task with the closest scheduling deadline as the >>>> one >>>> to be executed first. Thanks to this feature, also tasks that do not >>>> >>> >>> s/first/next/ >>> >>> Also, next sentence does not make much sense, I would drop the also; >>> >>> "Thanks to this feature, tasks that do not strictly comply with the ..." >>> >> I agree with these changes, but they are in text that is not changed by my >> patch, right? >> What should I do? Add these changes to the patch, or send an additional >> incremental >> patch with these changes? >> > > Patch is about clarity, right? I'd just add it to this patch. Ok; I'll send an updated patch to Juri. Thanks, Luca