[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 1/4] xen: add real time scheduler rtds
>>> On 16.09.14 at 18:38, <xumengpanda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2014-09-16 4:52 GMT-04:00 Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>: >> >> >>> On 16.09.14 at 10:42, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2014-09-14 at 17:37 -0400, Meng Xu wrote: >> >> --- /dev/null >> >> +++ b/xen/common/sched_rt.c >> > >> >> +/* >> >> + * Init/Free related code >> >> + */ >> >> +static int >> >> +rt_init(struct scheduler *ops) >> >> +{ >> >> + struct rt_private *prv = xzalloc(struct rt_private); >> >> + >> >> + printk("Initializing RTDS scheduler\n" \ >> >> + "WARNING: This is experimental software in development.\n" \ >> >> + "Use at your own risk.\n"); >> >> >> > I don't think you need the '\' in this case... >> >> Definitely not. Please drop. >> >> >> + list_for_each_safe(iter, tmp, runq) >> >> + { >> >> + svc = __q_elem(iter); >> >> + >> >> + if ( now >= svc->cur_deadline ) >> >> + { >> >> + rt_update_deadline(now, svc); >> >> + /* reinsert the vcpu if its deadline is updated */ >> >> + __q_remove(svc); >> >> + __runq_insert(ops, svc); >> >> + } >> >> + else >> >> + break; >> >> >> > Just from an aesthetic perspective, I think I'd have inverted the >> > condition and, hence, the two brances (i.e., "if ( < ) break; else {}"). >> >> In which case the "else" and with it one level of indentation >> should go away. > > > So the code will be like this: > > if ( < ) > break; > > rt_update_deadline(now, svc); > /* reinsert the vcpu if its deadline is updated */ > __q_remove(svc); > __runq_insert(ops, svc); > > > Am I correct? (Just confirm I understand what you said correctly. :-) ) Yes. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |