On 25/11/2024 19:15, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Hi Christian,
On Nov 25 15:00, Christian Franke wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Fixes: ...?
... the very first commit (cgf 2001) of sched.cc :-)
New patch attached.
From e95fc1aceb5287f9ad65c6c078125fecba6c6de9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Christian Franke <christian.fra...@t-online.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 14:51:04 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Cygwin: sched_setscheduler: allow changes of the priority
Behave like sched_setparam() if the requested policy is identical
to the fixed value (SCHED_FIFO) returned by sched_getscheduler().
Fixes: 6b2a2aa4af1e ("Add missing files.")
Huh, yeah, this is spot on. I wonder if it would make sense to change
that to 9a08b2c02eea ("* sched.cc: New file. Implement sched*.")
though, given that was the patch intended to add sched.cc :)))
Sorry, but I have to ask two more questions:
- Isn't returning SCHED_FIFO sched_getscheduler() just as wrong?
Shouldn't that be SCHED_OTHER, and sched_setscheduler() should check
for that instead? Cygwin in a real-time scenario sounds a bit
far-fetched...
I believe if you look into the git history, we used return SCHED_OTHER
and this was changed at some stage to SCHED_FIFO.
I don't know why.
(I came across this when fixing up some testsuite tests of this)
