On Wed, 2007-10-24 at 02:19 +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote: > Why not make it a task flag, since according to your code, you are only > interested whether this is <= 1 or > 1. Since !(x <= 1) <=> (x > 1) > for any given unsigned integer x, the required data structure is > a "boolean" or a flag. Hi Ingo, You are correct that the data is in fact interpreted as a boolean. I also had considered using a more boolean-like notation at one point. However, I then figured I went through the expense of computing it, I might as well store the actual value as an integer in case it can be used in another way. But to be honest, I cannot really think of any other potential uses, so perhaps we would be best to follow your suggestion. It could always be changed if such a need ever arises. Thank you for the feedback! Regards, -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- [PATCH 00/13] Balance RT tasks v5
- From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 13/13] RT: Cache cpus_allowed weight for optimizing migration
- From: Gregory Haskins <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 13/13] RT: Cache cpus_allowed weight for optimizing migration
- From: Ingo Oeser <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 00/13] Balance RT tasks v5
- Prev by Date: Re: How do I get my aic94xx to see sata drives?
- Next by Date: [BUG] 2.6.23-git19 - S390x: Kernel panic while bringing up the network interface
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 13/13] RT: Cache cpus_allowed weight for optimizing migration
- Next by thread: [PATCH 0/4] x86: some GART cleanups
- Index(es):
 |