Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets+hotplug+preepmt broken

[Paul Jackson]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/