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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:49:42 -0500 From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com> To: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com> Cc: mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, maxk@...lcomm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Give cpusets exclusive control over sched domains (ie remove cpu_isolated_map) I'll NAQ this one. As a result of the separate lkml thread: Inquiry: Should we remove "isolcpus= kernel boot option? (may have realtime uses) and as a result of there not yet being a good reason -to- remove this, other than a few kernel developers who don't like it, I conclude that we should not just remove the "isolcpus=" feature. It might be that we should deprecate it, as I have suggested in the past. But I'm not now seeing even a good reason for that. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists