[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1284841948.5879.301.camel@localhost>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:32:28 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, stable-review@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Stable-review] [064/123] sched: Protect task->cpus_allowed
access in sched_getaffinity()
I'm somewhat disturbed by the number of non-trivial scheduler changes
here. How well have these been tested as applied to the 2.6.32.y
branch?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists