Re: [PATCH] Allow cpusets to be configured/built on non-SMP systems

[Paul Menage]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +static int generate_sched_domains(struct cpumask **domains,
>>> +                     struct sched_domain_attr **attributes)
>>> +{
>>
>> Except here should "return 0;", otherwise emit a compile warining.
>>
>
> Good catch - the weird thing is that (in my UML build) it doesn't
> actually generate that warning. Mysterious.
>
> I'll resend with the extra return.

After looking at the sched domains code it's not clear to me that
returning 0 is necessarily the right thing to do -
partition_sched_domains() says that 0 is a special case used for
destroying existing domains? Would returning 1 and setting up a single
dummy domain be better?

Given that this return code only matters when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU &&
!CONFIG_SMP it's unlikely to ever be used, but I guess it's better to
get it right.

Paul
--
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/