On 2014-02-21 16:16, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Feb 21, 2014 9:04 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 2014-02-21 15:27, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Sebastian Huber
> > wrote:
> >> >On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>+#if __RTEMS_HAVE_S
On Feb 21, 2014 9:04 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 2014-02-21 15:27, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Sebastian Huber
> > wrote:
> >> >On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>+#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> >>> >>+con
On 2014-02-21 15:27, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
>>
>>+#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
>>+const Cpuset_Control *_Cpuset_Handler_default(void);
>>+#else
>>+#define _Cpuset_Hand
On Feb 21, 2014 8:25 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
> > On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
> >>
> >> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> >> +const Cpuset_Control *_Cpuset_Handler_default(void);
> >> +#else
>
Last message had no body. Oops.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-21 02:55, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
> >>I would prefer to see symmetry between our choice to use cpu_set_t as
> >>the opaque type
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
>>
>> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
>> +const Cpuset_Control *_Cpuset_Handler_default(void);
>> +#else
>> +#define _Cpuset_Handler_default() do { } while ( 0 )
>> +#e
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> Let me make one thing clear so we can quit discussing it. the "have sys
> cpuset" macro was a nice thing from us to avoid forcing everyone to update
> their tools immediately.
>
> There is no assumption that cpuset is not present long term an
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 2014-02-21 02:55, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>I would prefer to see symmetry between our choice to use cpu_set_t as
>>the opaque type for the cpu bit sets. Thus I recommend using the score
>>name _Cpu_set for the handler. (
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Sherrill [mailto:joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:23 PM
> To: Gedare Bloom; Jennifer Averett
> Cc: rtems-devel@rtems.org
> Subject: Re: Patches for classic affinity implementation and test
>
>
Let me make one thing clear so we can quit discussing it. the "have sys cpuset"
macro was a nice thing from us to avoid forcing everyone to update their tools
immediately.
There is no assumption that cpuset is not present long term and we will NOT
provide an alternative internal implementation.
On Feb 21, 2014 1:58 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
>
> On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
> > +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
> > +const Cpuset_Control *_Cpuset_Handler_default(void);
> > +#else
> > +#define _Cpuset_Handler_default() do { } while ( 0 )
> > +#end
On 2014-02-20 21:07, Jennifer Averett wrote:
+#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__ && defined( RTEMS_SMP )
+const Cpuset_Control *_Cpuset_Handler_default(void);
+#else
+#define _Cpuset_Handler_default() do { } while ( 0 )
+#endif
In case the C library doesn't provide an appropriate then we
shoul
On 2014-02-21 02:55, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>I would prefer to see symmetry between our choice to use cpu_set_t as
>>the opaque type for the cpu bit sets. Thus I recommend using the score
>>name _Cpu_set for the handler. (It is unfortunate that we can't use
>>_CPU_set because that would clash with
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
>
> On 2/20/2014 3:11 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> I mostly focused on the 0002-score... file. The others seemed ok at a
>> glance... with respect to the 0002 patch I have the following:
>>
>> Copyright should only be applied to code from the tim
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
>
> On 2/20/2014 4:45 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
>> On Feb 20, 2014, at 16:11 , Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>
>>> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__
>>> I think we decided to prefer the more explicit "#if defined(...)" for
>>> checking for CPP defines.
>
On 2/20/2014 4:45 PM, Peter Dufault wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2014, at 16:11 , Gedare Bloom wrote:
>
>> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__
>> I think we decided to prefer the more explicit "#if defined(...)" for
>> checking for CPP defines.
>> Also, what is this define checking against / where is it defi
On Feb 20, 2014, at 16:11 , Gedare Bloom wrote:
> +#if __RTEMS_HAVE_SYS_CPUSET_H__
> I think we decided to prefer the more explicit "#if defined(...)" for
> checking for CPP defines.
> Also, what is this define checking against / where is it defined?
I think "#if defined()" isn't more explicit
On 2/20/2014 3:11 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I mostly focused on the 0002-score... file. The others seemed ok at a
> glance... with respect to the 0002 patch I have the following:
>
> Copyright should only be applied to code from the time it is written.
> We should avoid copy-paste and extending co
I mostly focused on the 0002-score... file. The others seemed ok at a
glance... with respect to the 0002 patch I have the following:
Copyright should only be applied to code from the time it is written.
We should avoid copy-paste and extending copyright into the past.
fix the license address as r
Attached is a set of patches for review that implement classic affinity.
Jennifer Averett
On-Line Applications ResearchFrom e950c2191bc05f9d60afda99f6529360ae03670b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jennifer Averett
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 12:42:24 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 02/19] score: Add cpuset suppo
20 matches
Mail list logo
