Dipankar, replying to pj:
> > What part of what I wrote are you saying "No" to?
>
> The question right above "No" :)
Well ... that was less than obvious. You quoted too much, and
responded with information about other semaphores, not about
why other duties of _this_ semaphore made such a rename wrong.
Fortunately, Nathan clarified matters.
So how would you, or Srivatsa or Nathan, respond to my more substantive
point, to repeat:
Srivatsa, replying to Dinakar:
> This in fact was the reason that we added lock_cpu_hotplug
> in sched_setaffinity.
Why just in sched_setaffinity()? What about the other 60+ calls to
set_cpus_allowed(). Shouldn't most of those calls be checking that the
passed in cpus are online (holding lock_cpu_hotplug while doing all
this)? Either that, or at least handling the error from
set_cpus_allowed() if the requested cpus end up not being online? I see
only 2 set_cpus_allowed() calls that make any pretense of examining the
return value.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
