Re: [RFD/RFC PATCH 0/8] Towards implementing proxy execution

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:16:29PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:57:10 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:34:17PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
> > > So, I would propose to make the proxy() function of patch more
> > > generic, and not strictly bound to mutexes. Maybe a task structure
> > > can contain a list of tasks for which the task can act as a proxy,
> > > and we can have a function like "I want to act as a proxy for task
> > > T" to be invoked when a task blocks?  
> > 
> > Certainly possible, but that's something I'd prefer to look at after
> > it all 'works'.
> 
> Of course :)
> I was mentioning this idea because maybe it can have some impact on the
> design.
> 
> BTW, here is another "interesting" issue I had in the past with changes
> like this one: how do we check if the patchset works as expected?
> 
> "No crashes" is surely a requirement, but I think we also need some
> kind of testcase that fails if the inheritance mechanism is not working
> properly, and is successful if the inheritance works.
> 
> Maybe we can develop some testcase based on rt-app (if noone has such a
> testcase already)

Indeed; IIRC there is a test suite that mostly covers the FIFO-PI stuff,
that should obviously still pass. Steve, do you know where that lives?

For the extended DL stuff, we'd need new tests.