[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1269604358.12097.143.camel@laptop>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:52:38 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: set_cpus_allowed_ptr
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 12:22 +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Would it make sense to clean up the set_cpus_allowed() vs
> > set_cpus_allowed_ptr() mess using the semantic patch tool?
> >
> > I guess it would be three patches:
> > 1) converting the current remaining set_cpus_allowed() users into
> > set_cpus_allowed_ptr().
> > 2) remove set_cpus_allowed().
> > 3) rename set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to set_cpus_allowed()
>
> Perhaps a subtlety is that set_cpus_allowed is creating a new variable,
> whose address it sends to set_cpus_allowed_ptr?
Yes it does that, but I don't think that actually matters,
set_cpus_allowed_ptr()'s arg is const, so making that temporary copy
shouldn't have any side effects.
--
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