[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200911171544.25355.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists