On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:47:45PM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> chrt requires a priority argument, even for classes ( like batch )
> that do not support them. If you specify a non zero value, then the
> command fails. I think the argument should be ignored and forced to
> zero for these classes
Well, why do you expect this correction in userspace? I really
don't like when we're trying to be more smart than kernel.
For example for setpriority() is kernel able to do the correction
for prio argument when the argument is out of the expected range. For
some reason sched_setscheduler() is not so smart and incorrect
priority ends with error.
IMHO is better to follow kernel for so low-level utils like chrt(1)
than silently hide mistakes in usage. And the current code is also
ready for possible future kernel changes -- implement extra
corrections and policies in userspace means that one day you will in
conflict with your kernel.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
