On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:16:29PM +0200, luca abeni wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:34:17PM +0200, luca abeni wrote: > > > So, I would propose to make the proxy() function of patch more > > > generic, and not strictly bound to mutexes. Maybe a task structure > > > can contain a list of tasks for which the task can act as a proxy, > > > and we can have a function like "I want to act as a proxy for task > > > T" to be invoked when a task blocks? > > > > Certainly possible, but that's something I'd prefer to look at after > > it all 'works'. > > Of course :) > I was mentioning this idea because maybe it can have some impact on the > design. > > BTW, here is another "interesting" issue I had in the past with changes > like this one: how do we check if the patchset works as expected? > > "No crashes" is surely a requirement, but I think we also need some > kind of testcase that fails if the inheritance mechanism is not working > properly, and is successful if the inheritance works. > > Maybe we can develop some testcase based on rt-app (if noone has such a > testcase already) Indeed; IIRC there is a test suite that mostly covers the FIFO-PI stuff, that should obviously still pass. Steve, do you know where that lives? For the extended DL stuff, we'd need new tests.
