Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC v1 1/4] rt: Add rt scheduler to hypervisor

[Meng Xu <xumengpanda@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dario,

> Of course, I'm not against using the more specific name, such as
> XEN_SCHEDULER_RT_DS. What I'm concerned is: when we implement a new
> server mechanism or new scheduling policy inside the current
> sched_rt.c, the too specific name will become impropriate and we will
> have to change name again. :-)
>
As I said, it's always going to be an RT related scheduling policy so,
if the algorithm will be similar enough, it could be a first class
citizen inside sched_rt.c.

If we want to have more than a scheduling policy, we *need* names (of
the policies, not of the source file) to be specific.

The only downside of the specific name is if we at some point will want
to _replace_, rather than add, the DS algorithm with some other thing.
But even in that case, I don't think there will be much issues: at the
Xen level (not much compatibility requirements) we can just kill the old
and introduce the new. At the libxl level, we'll handle API stability in
the usual ways.

So, yes, I think I'm all for XEN_SCHEDULER_RT_DS implemented in
xen/common/sched_rt.c.

OK. I got it. I changed the name fromÂXEN_SCHEDULER_RT toÂXEN_SCHEDULER_RT_DS.Â

Thanks,

Meng

Â

--

-----------
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