From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3344BC433F5 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6680B3C93B7 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:48:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE40F3C54C9 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:48:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B246140004C for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:48:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82708218E6; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:48:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1643107700; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zBMl4ufKIqX/IcO1L+wcg+y9kvWywnNPZ9oH5HDZj1g=; b=yK/4miI4/kHkeEuTdLkHQNc2rm/b8wHNkHC4aCetVtoBi5YvfQ0iB1/AqQk9oXL8eW8sST dFcWGJZCCi+TPVnESrEe85fjPJbGujnq2Jq1Coz8M5GUyB394ZoMz5wkpaHftZXrSfetYF B9/Eo7Y01diTMNExBM70UiEzgKNyRSw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1643107700; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zBMl4ufKIqX/IcO1L+wcg+y9kvWywnNPZ9oH5HDZj1g=; b=ilyO5uezPXDN7xl5fAuLue8lfk2P7xMcJ4DdomuYzOl1K3tYVEImW6z1m3XPzZLbmLIBs2 Bt5s4ZWM2di+rfDw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 701BD13DB8; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:48:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id UxklGnTV72F1cwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:48:20 +0000 Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:50:08 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: References: <20211220201814.31596-1-pvorel@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] sched_get_priority_max01: Add more policies X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi! > > I supposed that we need this for SCHED_DEADLINE right? What about > > alternative libc implementations, does they define SCHED_DEADLINE as > > well? Do we need a fallback? > > Sorry for the delay (I did write a reply, but probably forget to sent). > musl and glibc support all of them, but uclibc-ng doesn't have SCHED_DEADLINE. > (and SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK). I'll send v2 with SCHED_DEADLINE fallback. Sounds good. > I guess SCHED_RESET_ON_FORK would deserve it's own test (man sched(7): > when set, children created by fork(2) do not inherit privileged scheduling > policies). Yes please. Either write the test or at least create a github issue. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp