On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:10:05 +0200
Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri 2006-06-23 23:35:25, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > I don't think so.
> > If we can expect all things can be maintained by user-space in proper way,
> > why we need forced migration ? This patch is just one of possible workarounds.
> > and implemtns, "success always" and "fail if busy" policy to cpu-hot-remove.
>
> So... we have piece of policy in kernel, that maybe should not be
> there (forced migration). Now, you want to make that policy optional,
> and add second piece of policy?
>
> No no, I'm afraid. Pavel
>
Ah, okay. the kernel has the policy in it, so we don't need another policy...
Hmm...
I want another one policy which is more conservative,
but if people says "don't do that", I'll give up this patch..
and consider how to explain users.
Thanks,
-Kame
-
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]
