linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Separate group-scheduling code more clearly

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1310724856.2586.298.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:14:16 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Jan H." Schönherr <schnhrr@...tu-berlin.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Separate group-scheduling code more clearly

On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 18:32 +0200, Jan H. Schönherr wrote:
> 
> I get your point, then what about doing it the other way round?
> The patch below should be more to your liking.

Yes, Thanks!

> One could do something similar with sched_init() to get rid of
> some #ifdefs, i. e. separating code based on features instead
> of handling all features intermixed. Not sure whether it is 
> worth the effort, though...

I'll try and remember next time someone needs to touch that code ;-)

> PS: This time with an extra From line, so that your tools hopefully
> work without any problems. :) 

They do, again thanks!
--
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/