On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 18:28 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:27 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> > +struct sched_param_ex {
> > +       int sched_priority;
> > +       struct timespec sched_runtime;
> > +       struct timespec sched_deadline;
> > +       struct timespec sched_period;
> > +       unsigned int sched_flags;
> > +
> > +       struct timespec curr_runtime;
> > +       struct timespec used_runtime;
> > +       struct timespec curr_deadline;
> > +}; 
> 
> It would be better for alignment reasons to move the sched_flags field
> next to the sched_priority field.
> 
Makes sense, thanks. :-)

quoted text
> I would suggest we add at least one more field so we can implement the
> stochastic model from UNC, sched_runtime_dev or sched_runtime_var or
> somesuch.
> 
Ok, no problem with that too.

BTW, as Dhaval was suggesting, are (after those changes) fine with this
new sched_param? Do we need some further mechanism to grant its
extendability?
Padding?
Versioning?
void *data field?
Whatever?

:-O

I'd like very much to have some discussion here, if you think it is
needed, in hope of avoiding future ABI issues as much as possible! :-P

Thanks,
Dario

-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa  (Italy)

http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net /
dario.faggioli@jabber.org