Re: [Xen-devel] Sanity check input and serialize vcpu data in sched_rt.c

[Meng Xu <xumengpanda@xxxxxxxxx>]

2014-10-29 6:06 GMT-04:00 Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, 2014-10-25 at 10:16 -0400, Meng Xu wrote:
>> These two patches are to solve the issues found by Jan Beulich at 
>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg03554.html.
>>
>> The solution is summarized by Dario Faggioli at 
>> http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2014-09/msg03603.html.
>>
>> Here is the solution:
>>      - sanity checking input params in rt_dom_cntl()
>>      - serialize rt_dom_cntl() itself against the global lock
>>      - move the call to rt_update_deadline() from _alloc to _insert
>>
> Ok, thanks Meng for the patches, and for this summary.

Thank you very much for your comments!

>
> I've already reviewed the patches, and they look fine to me. If I can
> add a few things about the submission:
>  - threading is ok this time, good job with that :-D
>  - cover letter subject summarizes properly the series content, but
>    should contain the [PATCH xxx xxx] prefix as regular patches, as if
>    it were patch 0 of the series

I will do that next time. I used the git send-email --compose to
compose the cover letter. Next time I will add the prefix for the
cover letter. :-)

>  - since this is v2, it is really useful to include, in each patch, a
>    quick summary of what changed wrt previous version. You usually do it
>    in the changelog of each patch itself, after a "---" mark, below the
>    Signed-off and similar tags
>

Got it. The version 1 does not split the patch into two smaller
patches and is not properly threaded (I sent the patch as a reply to
your comment in the rtds scheduler patch.). So I labeled this one as
version 2 to distinguish with that.

> Finally, since we're in freeze, we should 'convince' Konrad that these
> patches really need to be merged right now, instead of waiting for 4.6.
>
> See Konrad's development update emails for more details. About that,
> Konrad, my take is as follows:
>  - this is a bugfix, so, always a good one to have :-)
>  - this only touches the new scheduler's code, with basically zero
>    chances of causing issues to others
>  - the new scheduler is marked as experimental

Yes! I totally agree. Thank you very much for your summary of the reasons. :-)

>
> So, yes, I think these patches should be considered for 4.5

Yes. :-)

Thank you very much!

Best,

Meng
-----------
Meng Xu
PhD Student in Computer and Information Science
University of Pennsylvania

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel