linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <4845F742.2070301@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:00:34 +0800
From:	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask()
 and update_nodemask()

on 2008-6-4 8:55 Li Zefan wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:31:05 +0800
>> Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>
>>> extract two functions from update_cpumask() and update_nodemask().They will be
>>> used later for updating tasks' cpus_allowed and mems_allowed after CPU/NODE
>>> offline/online.
>> Unfortunately this patch conflicts with
>> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/cpusets-fix-bug-when-adding-nonexistent-cpu-or-mem.patch
>>
>> Please check that the patch which I merged still makes sense.  ie: that
>> we did not revert the effects of that bugfix.
>>
> 
> They are fixing 2 different bugs, so they are irrelated, but unfortunately conflict in
> the code due to Miao's first patch which does code restructuring.
> 

Right. I will modify my patches.

--
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/