Hi Peter,
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:23:22AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I'm working on this text. I see the following in kernel/sched/core.c:
>>
>> [[
>> static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:23:22AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm working on this text. I see the following in kernel/sched/core.c:
>
> [[
> static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> const struct sched_attr *attr,
>
Hi Peter,
I'm working on this text. I see the following in kernel/sched/core.c:
[[
static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
const struct sched_attr *attr,
bool user)
{
...
int policy =
Hi Peter,
I'm working on this text. I see the following in kernel/sched/core.c:
[[
static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
const struct sched_attr *attr,
bool user)
{
...
int policy =
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:23:22AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
I'm working on this text. I see the following in kernel/sched/core.c:
[[
static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
const struct sched_attr *attr,
Hi Peter,
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:23:22AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
I'm working on this text. I see the following in kernel/sched/core.c:
[[
static int __sched_setscheduler(struct
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:21:14AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
> > resubmit?
>
> Yeah, I'll try and get it done today, but
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:21:14AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
resubmit?
Yeah, I'll try and get it done today, but there's a few
On 05/05/2014 09:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:41:08AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
But, in that case, I need to know the
copyright and license you want to use. Please see
https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html
>>>
>>> GPLv2 + DOC
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:41:08AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> But, in that case, I need to know the
> >> copyright and license you want to use. Please see
> >> https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html
> >
> > GPLv2 + DOC (not v2+) sounds good.
>
> I'm a little
On 05/05/2014 09:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
>> resubmit?
>
> Yeah, I'll try and get it done today, but there's a few icky bugs
>
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
> resubmit?
Yeah, I'll try and get it done today, but there's a few icky bugs
waiting for my attention as well, I'll do me bestest :-)
Hi Peter,
Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
resubmit?
By the way, I assume you are just writing this page as raw text.
While I'd prefer to get proper man markup source, I'll add that
if you if you don't :-/. But, in that case, I need to know the
copyright and
Hi Peter,
Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
resubmit?
By the way, I assume you are just writing this page as raw text.
While I'd prefer to get proper man markup source, I'll add that
if you if you don't :-/. But, in that case, I need to know the
copyright and
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
resubmit?
Yeah, I'll try and get it done today, but there's a few icky bugs
waiting for my attention as well, I'll do me bestest :-)
By
On 05/05/2014 09:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:55:28AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Looks like a good set of comments from Juri. Could you revise and
resubmit?
Yeah, I'll try and get it done today, but there's a few icky bugs
waiting for
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:41:08AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
But, in that case, I need to know the
copyright and license you want to use. Please see
https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html
GPLv2 + DOC (not v2+) sounds good.
I'm a little unclear here. Do you
On 05/05/2014 09:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 09:41:08AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
But, in that case, I need to know the
copyright and license you want to use. Please see
https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/licenses.html
GPLv2 + DOC (not v2+) sounds
Hi,
sorry for the late reply, but I was travelling for work.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:09:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
> > the
Hi,
sorry for the late reply, but I was travelling for work.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:09:37 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
> the light of those comments, and hopefully also after feedback from
> Juri and Dario?
New text below; hopefully a little clearer. If
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
> the light of those comments, and hopefully also after feedback from
> Juri and Dario?
>
> >
> > sched_attr::sched_runtime
> >
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
the light of those comments, and hopefully also after feedback from
Juri and Dario?
On 04/29/2014 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
>
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
the light of those comments, and hopefully also after feedback from
Juri and Dario?
On 04/29/2014 06:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Juri,
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
the light of those comments, and hopefully also after feedback from
Juri and Dario?
sched_attr::sched_runtime
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 01:09:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the revision. More comments below. Could you revise in
the light of those comments, and hopefully also after feedback from
Juri and Dario?
New text below; hopefully a little clearer. If not,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Juri, Dario, Can you have a look at the 2nd part; I'm not at all sure I
got the activate/release the right way around.
My current thinking was that we activate first, and then release it to
go run. But googling the
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 04/28/2014 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > find below an updated manpage, I did not apply the comments on parts
> > that are identical to SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2) in order to keep
Hi Peter,
On 04/28/2014 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> find below an updated manpage, I did not apply the comments on parts
> that are identical to SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2) in order to keep these texts
> in alignment. I feel that if we change one we should also change the
>
Hi Peter,
On 04/28/2014 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hi Michael,
find below an updated manpage, I did not apply the comments on parts
that are identical to SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2) in order to keep these texts
in alignment. I feel that if we change one we should also change the
other, and
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
On 04/28/2014 10:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hi Michael,
find below an updated manpage, I did not apply the comments on parts
that are identical to SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2) in order to keep these
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 03:08:55PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Juri, Dario, Can you have a look at the 2nd part; I'm not at all sure I
got the activate/release the right way around.
My current thinking was that we activate first, and then release it to
go run. But googling the
Hi Michael,
find below an updated manpage, I did not apply the comments on parts
that are identical to SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2) in order to keep these texts
in alignment. I feel that if we change one we should also change the
other, and such a 'patch' is best done separate from the new manpage
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:34:49 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:47:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > Following the review comments that one or two people sent, are you
> > planning to send in a revised version of this page?
>
> Yes, I
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:34:49 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:47:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Following the review comments that one or two people sent, are you
planning to send in a revised version of this page?
Hi Michael,
find below an updated manpage, I did not apply the comments on parts
that are identical to SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2) in order to keep these texts
in alignment. I feel that if we change one we should also change the
other, and such a 'patch' is best done separate from the new manpage
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:34:49 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, is there any test code lying about somewhere that I could play with?
I have a deadline program you can play with too:
http://rostedt.homelinux.com/private/deadline.c
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:47:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Following the review comments that one or two people sent, are you
> planning to send in a revised version of this page?
Yes, I just suck at getting around to it :-(, I'll do it first thing
tomorrow.
>
Hi Peter,
Following the review comments that one or two people sent, are you
planning to send in a revised version of this page? Also, is there any
test code lying about somewhere that I could play with?
Thanks,
Michael
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09,
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 05:47:25PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hi Peter,
Following the review comments that one or two people sent, are you
planning to send in a revised version of this page?
Yes, I just suck at getting around to it :-(, I'll do it first thing
tomorrow.
Also,
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 21:34:49 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
Also, is there any test code lying about somewhere that I could play with?
I have a deadline program you can play with too:
http://rostedt.homelinux.com/private/deadline.c
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
Hi Peter,
Following the review comments that one or two people sent, are you
planning to send in a revised version of this page? Also, is there any
test code lying about somewhere that I could play with?
Thanks,
Michael
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org
Il 10/04/2014 09:47, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
Hi all,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:42:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:19:11PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
The following "real-time" policies are also supported, for
why the "'s?
I borrowed those from
Hi all,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:42:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:19:11PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > The following "real-time" policies are also supported, for
> >
> > why the "'s?
>
> I borrowed those from SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2).
>
> > >
Hi all,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:42:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:19:11PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
The following real-time policies are also supported, for
why the 's?
I borrowed those from SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2).
Il 10/04/2014 09:47, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
Hi all,
On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:42:04 +0200
Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:19:11PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
The following real-time policies are also supported, for
why the 's?
I borrowed those from
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:19:11PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > The following "real-time" policies are also supported, for
>
> why the "'s?
I borrowed those from SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2).
> > sched_attr::sched_flags additional flags that can influence
> > scheduling behaviour.
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:25:10AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:20:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > If your could take another pass though your existing text, to incorporate
> > the
> > new flags stuff, and then send a page to me + linux-man@
> >
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:20:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> If your could take another pass though your existing text, to incorporate the
> new flags stuff, and then send a page to me + linux-man@
> that would be great.
Sorry, this slipped my mind. An updated version below.
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:20:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
If your could take another pass though your existing text, to incorporate the
new flags stuff, and then send a page to me + linux-man@
that would be great.
Sorry, this slipped my mind. An updated version below. Heavy
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 11:25:10AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 02:20:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
If your could take another pass though your existing text, to incorporate
the
new flags stuff, and then send a page to me + linux-man@
that would
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:19:11PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
The following real-time policies are also supported, for
why the 's?
I borrowed those from SCHED_SETSCHEDULER(2).
sched_attr::sched_flags additional flags that can influence
scheduling behaviour. Currently as per
52 matches
Mail list logo
