Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jun 2005 06:21:50 -0700 (PDT) | From | Daniel Walker <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.12-rc4-V0.7.47-06 |
| |
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > > > > > > existing_sp_head: > > > > > itr_pl2 = container_of(itr_pl->dp_node.prev, struct plist, dp_node); > > > > > list_add(&pl->sp_node, &itr_pl2->sp_node); > > > > > > > > This breaks fifo ordering. > > > > > > Daniel, is the issue (and other issues) Oleg noticed still present? I'm > > > still a bit uneasy about the complexity of the plist changes. > > > > I think this one isn't right. We could make a test quite to check > > correctness. Find the errors before they find us. Oleg may even have > > something like that already half done. > > > > Are you concerned with plist as a whole, or just my recent changes? > > > > There is still a problem with plist_for_each() missing the first list > > member, which I need to fix. > > plist seems pretty stable now, but i'm still worried about behavioral > correctness. The previous method, while it didnt scale as well, was at > least more obvious to review.
True, list_add() vs. 200+ lines of code .. I've added our plist to fusyn with no ill effects. As Oleg suggested I used some userspace code to check what it was doing, while I was working on it. I've fairly confident in it, however I do still have some concerns for the same reasons you do.
I could do some cleanup on it, some comments are wrong now. That and a test suite, maybe that will change the confidence level.
Daniel
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |