[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140512122452.GB13467@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:24:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
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>
Subject: Re: SCHED_DEADLINE, sched_getscheduler(), and sched_getparam()
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 02:09:58PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> 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...
s/setscheduler/getscheduler/ ?
I'm a proponent of fail hard instead of fail silently and muddle on.
And while we can fully and correctly return sched_getscheduler() we
cannot do so for sched_getparam().
Returning sched_param::sched_priority == 0 for DEADLINE would also break
the symmetry between sched_setparam() and sched_getparam(), both will
fail for SCHED_DEADLINE.
--
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