: [lng-odp] [PATCH] validation: add odp_schedule_pause and
odp_schedule_resume tests
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
We need
On 21 January 2015 at 06:23, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Bill Fischofer wrote:
My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent
and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events
Petri you are the scheduling expert, can we get your review, otherwise as a
validation test I can review it with less deep understanding.
On 21 January 2015 at 07:55, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org wrote:
On 21 January 2015 at 06:23, Jerin Jacob jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com
wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been on
the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola
Petri unless you don't think this fits I suggest we apply it to test what
is in the repo now
On 20 January 2015 at 09:23, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org
wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets
Who review this patch please add review-by.
Mike please add yours because it's validation patch.
Maxim.
On 01/20/2015 05:23 PM, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
PING!
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have,
It is still not clear to me in writing that we want this, we did discuss it
earlier but Jerin, Bill and Ola have questions on this thread and I am not
sure they are all addressed.
On 20 January 2015 at 16:34, Maxim Uvarov maxim.uva...@linaro.org wrote:
Who review this patch please add
My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent
and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events
prior to exiting the scheduling loop. We can revisit this post v1.0 when
we discuss various recovery scenarios.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 3:47 PM,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:25:41PM -0600, Bill Fischofer wrote:
My questions were answered. For now scheduling caches are non-transparent
and applications wishing to pause scheduling must drain any cached events
prior to exiting the scheduling loop. We can revisit this post v1.0 when
we
Without any clear change in sight, lets test what we have, this has been
on the list for a month
On 14 January 2015 at 08:35, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Ola Liljedahl ola.liljed...@linaro.org
wrote:
On 7 January 2015 at 20:41, Mike Holmes
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
Still abit unclear after the discussion we had with Petri, but I think
we need to keep the behavior as it is, meaning applications need to
take care of the
That certainly seems to be the upshot for now from yesterday's
discussions. Whether this is something that will persist longer-term
remains to be seen.
The net is that if you want to pause there a certain amount of choreography
that the application needs to do to perform such role-switching in a
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
I am unsure if I need to pay attention to this for 0.7.0
On 7 January 2015 at 04:39, Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Bill Fischofer
bill.fischo...@linaro.org wrote:
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Jerin Jacob
jerin.ja...@caviumnetworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer bill.fischo...@linaro.org
wrote:
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part
Caches should be transparent. While this may be needed here, it's a poor
set of semantics to expose as part of the formal APIs. This is definitely
something we need to address. My suggestion is that a odp_schedule_pause()
should cause an implicit cache flush if the implementation is using a
I think it's something we need to discuss during the sync call.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Mike Holmes mike.hol...@linaro.org wrote:
Should a bug be made to track a needed change or is it important for 1.0
and needs to be in the delta doc ?
On 6 January 2015 at 08:40, Bill Fischofer
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 03:10:11PM +0200, Ciprian Barbu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Ciprian Barbu ciprian.ba...@linaro.org
---
test/validation/odp_schedule.c | 63
++
1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git
19 matches
Mail list logo
