On 10/9/18 12:51 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> The main concerns I have with the current approach is that, being based >> on mutex.c, it's both >> >> - not linked with futexes >> - not involving "legacy" priority inheritance (rt_mutex.c) >> >> I believe one of the main reasons Peter started this on mutexes is to >> have better coverage of potential problems (which I can assure everybody >> it had). I'm not yet sure what should we do moving forward, and this is >> exactly what I'd be pleased to hear your opinions on. > wasn't the idea that once it works to get rid of rt_mutex? As far as I know, it is. But there are some additional complexity involving a -rt version of this patch, for instance: What should the protocol do if the thread migrating is with migration disabled? The side effects of, for instance, ignoring the migrate_disable() would add noise for the initial implementation... too much complexity at once. IMHO, once it works in the non-rt, it will be easier to do the changes needed to integrate it with -rt. Thoughts? -- Daniel
