linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimw9yHxKuclHtZ4UzGtwzc2723IDLwmNguRhnZz@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:46:27 -0700
From:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED] sched: adjust when cpu_active and cpuset 
	configurations are updated during cpu on/offlining

On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> I'm primarily curious why different archs are doing things
> differently, which causes confusion and reduces test coverage.  Also,
> if you just think about the end result, what x86 is doing makes more
> sense.  Although it may end up with larger kernel image, it actually
> allows more to be dropped once init is complete.

It allows x86 to drop some code that it never needed in the first place.

i don't think that is better :-)

Maybe someone from x86-land can explain why they *keep* __exit
code as they are the ones doing it wrong (/me ducks, runs and hides)

-Tony
--
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/