On 27/06/16 17:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 05:28:37PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 17/06/16 09:49, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:48:41 +0100 > > > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > setup_new_dl_entity() takes two parameters, but it only actually uses > > > > one of them to setup a new dl_entity. > > > > > > > > > > Actually this patch is making it so that setup_new_dl_entity() only > > > uses one of the parameters. Can you note why that change happened. > > > Because this change log implies that the second parameter wasn't used > > > before this patch, and that is incorrect. > > > > > > > True, but we were practically already using the same parameter, under a > > different name though, after > > > > 2f9f3fdc928 "sched/deadline: Remove dl_new from struct sched_dl_entity" > > > > as we currently do: > > > > setup_new_dl_entity(&p->dl, &p->dl) > > > > > This patch reverts part of the change done in > > > commit 2d3d891d334 "sched/deadline: Add SCHED_DEADLINE inheritance > > > logic" > > > > > > > Before Luca's change we were doing > > > > setup_new_dl_entity(dl_se, pi_se) > > > > in update_dl_entity() for a dl_se->new entity. So, I guess the question > > is actually why we wanted to use pi_se's parameters (the potential PI > > donor) for setting up a new entity? Maybe we broke the situation where a > > task is currently boosted by a DEADLINE waiter and we swich the holder > > to DEADLINE? > > > > > It would be nice to have the reason in the change log. > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for pointing out what might be more than inaccuracy in the > > changelog. > > Will you be reposting with a new Changelog? >
Yes. Sorry, I didn't have much time to follow up on this. I actually think that a different change is required. Let's discuss that on v2. Best, - Juri
