On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 01:10:56PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:04:01 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Urgh; maybe. But I would would not want the new thing to be called
> > _deadline, maybe _v{n} id anything and have a KERN_WARNING emitted when
> > people enable the old one.
>
> I wasn't thinking of having a new sched switch, I was thinking of
> having multiple ones. And not versions, as the one for a deadline task
> wouldn't be applicable for a non deadline task. But regardless, I'm
> also thinking of something else.
No, it should really stay one tracepoint, useful for all scheduling.
> > Ideally we'd rename the old one, but I suspect even that would break
> > stuff :/
>
> Yes, we don't want to get rid of the old one. But it shouldn't break
> anything if we extend it. I'm thinking of extending it with a dynamic
> array to store the deadline task values (runtime, period). And for non
> deadline tasks, the array would be empty (size zero). I think that
> could be doable and maintain backward compatibility.
Why the complexity? Why not just tack those 32 bytes on and get on with
life?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
