linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/21] scheduler: implement force_cpus_allowed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:44:25 +1030
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	avi@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/21] scheduler: implement force_cpus_allowed_ptr()

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:45:13 am Tejun Heo wrote:
> Implement force_cpus_allowed_ptr() which is similar to
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() but bypasses PF_THREAD_BOUND check and ignores
> cpu_active() status as long as the target cpu is online.  This will be
> used for concurrency-managed workqueue.

Can we drop the silly _ptr() postfix?  It was a hack someone added to
avoid churning set_cpus_allowed(), and no need to repeat here.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/