From: Paul J. <pj...@sg...> - 2005-05-14 02:59:03
|
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 <pj...@en...> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401 |