Re: [PATCH] sched hardcode non-smp set_cpus_allowed

[Paul Jackson]

Rusty wrote:
> Hmm, I do slightly prefer the former, since it is exactly the same as
> the SMP case,

I tend to agree with that, in theory.

But the cpu_online_map reference had broken some (driver, module, ...?)
that had wasted a bit of Andrew's time, which was worth something to me
as well.  I was more than happy to make a one-line change if it removed
a small pothole on Andrew's road.

We've got a couple of schools of thought here ... at least.

I tend to prefer having the source code express the general case, and
then using header file magic to optimize the generated code for the uni-
processor systems.  I guess this would be Rusty-style source code,
Andrew-style machine code, and esoteric style headers.

> With our include web, however, that might be tricky.

Yeah.  Not worth messing with, in my book.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 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/