Hi all,
here is the promised update for Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt.
I send it as an RFC because of the following doubts:
1) I split the patches trying to isolate related changes. So,
- the first patch fixes 2 typos that I noticed when updating the
documentation
- the second patch is based on Zhiqiang Zhang's patch and fixes some
inconsistencies in the symbols used for period and execution times
- the third patch adds a small discussion about admission tests for EDF on
single processor systems
- the fourth patch discusses the multi-processor case, adding some missing
references
I am not sure if this split is ok, or if I should do something different
(should I put all of the changes in a single patch?)
2) The second patch is partly by me and partly by Zhiqiang Zhang. I do not
know how to preserve Zhiqiang Zhang's authorship, so I added "Based on a
patch by Zhiqiang Zhang" in the changelog. But I am not sure if this is
the correct thing to do (maybe I should split this in 2 different patches?)
3) I re-read the added text multiple times, and it looks ok to me... But I am
not a native speaker, so it might contain English errors or sentences that
are not clear enough
4) I think I added all the needed references, and Section 3 now looks like a
self-contained introduction to EDF scheduling... If someone thinks that
some additional references are needed, let me know and I'll search and
add them
Thanks,
Luca
Luca Abeni (4):
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: fix typos
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: use consistent namings
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: Some notes on EDF
schedulability
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt: add some references
Documentation/scheduler/sched-deadline.txt | 129 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 113 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
