linux-kernel - Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000501c7df67$a644c9e0$6501a8c0@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:10:56 -0700
From:	"Mitchell Erblich" <erblichs@...thlink.net>
To:	"Mike Galbraith" <efault@....de>
Cc:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <mingo@...e.hu>,
	<dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: QUESTION: RT & SCHED & fork: ?MISSING EQUIV of task_new_fairfor RT tasks.

Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 12:28 -0700, Mitchell Erblich wrote:
> > Group, Ingo Molnar, etc,
> >
> > Why does the rt sched_class contain fewer elements than fair?
> > missing is the RT for .task_new.
> 
> No class specific initialization needs to be done for RT tasks.
> 
>         -Mike


Mike, et al,

    one time:  I was told that this group likes bottom posts.

    The logic of class independent code calling class
    scheduling dependent code, assumes that all functions
   are in ALL the class dependent sections.

    Minimally, if I agree with your above statement, I would assume 
    that the function should still exist as a null type function. However,
    in reality,  alot of RT class specific init is done. Just currently 
    none of it is done in this non-existant function.

Mitchell Erblich
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/