[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKgNAkiA23kAFyXQkFV4z0aUE+y5K7AFNwRW+4LqwAyVj=tQtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:09:58 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: SCHED_DEADLINE, sched_getscheduler(), and sched_getparam()
Hi Peter,
Looking at the code of sched_getparam() and sched_setscheduler() (to
see what might need to land in the man pagea with respect to
SCHED_DEADLINE changes), I see that the former fails (EINVAL) if the
target is a SCHED_DEADLINE process, while the latter succeeds
(returning SCHED_DEADLINE).
The sched_setscheduler() seems fine, but what's the rationale for
having sched_getparam() fail in this case, rather than just returning
a sched_priority of zero (since sched_priority is in any case unused,
as for SCHED_OTHER, right)? My point is that the change seems to
needlessly break applications that employ sched_getparam(). Maybe I am
missing something...
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists