[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aJ2eqI63i5MBkV2W@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 10:30:32 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Yuri Andriaccio <yurand2000@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Yuri Andriaccio <yuri.andriaccio@...tannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/25] sched/deadline: Do not access dl_se->rq
directly
Hi,
On 31/07/25 12:55, Yuri Andriaccio wrote:
...
> @@ -1667,9 +1668,9 @@ void sched_init_dl_servers(void)
>
> WARN_ON(dl_server(dl_se));
>
> - dl_server_apply_params(dl_se, runtime, period, 1);
> -
> dl_se->dl_server = 1;
> + BUG_ON(dl_server_apply_params(dl_se, runtime, period, 1));
A WARN_ON(), with possibly a recover strategy, is usually to prefer.
Thanks,
Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists