Re: [PATCH] fix sys cpumap for > 352 NR_CPUS

From: Paul Jackson
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 21:18:07 EST


> Honestly, I dislike the static check altogether ...

The build time check was your idea in the first place, as I recall.
I hadn't added it to my variants. Apparently we agree not to add it.
Ok.

> Because now you have silently truncated, which is much worse than

I absolutely agree with your dislike of hidden intermittent failures.

For a constant failure such as this, even if everyone misses the
botch for the first few times that SGI boots a bazillion CPU system
in the lab, it will get noticed soon enough. This is in fact
exactly what happened with the 99 char limit that was there now.

> len = cpumask_scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, mask);
> if (len == PAGE_SIZE)
> return -ENOMEM;

That looks nice.

If you want me to add the "if (len ..." check, let me know.
Or if you want to send Andrew a patch that adds it, I'll
gladly support that.

==> Do note that I had to change the -1UL to PAGE_SIZE, in a
patch to Andrew about 12 hours ago. The *scnprintf()
family of fine formatting functions suppresses all requested
output if handed a length with the high bit set.

> That would be extremely unusual; we tend not to panic ...

Yup - I think it was Greg who said the same thing. Clearly this is
not a panic.

I was wrong to suggest panic'ing here.

> I'll do it; seems like we need negotiation with Greg-KH, too.

Ok - have fun.

> I question anyone's ability to produce a perfectly balanced solution
> without any external input.

Whatever ... my view of who was saying and doing what here doesn't
entirely match yours.

So be it.

--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/