linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] cpusets: dynamical scheduler domain flags

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: <500CB763.9020802@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 Jul 2012 10:30:59 +0800
From:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
	paul@...lmenage.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] cpusets: dynamical scheduler domain flags

On 07/21/2012 12:42 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 17:03 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> This patch set provide a way for user to dynamically configure the scheduler
>> domain flags, which usually to be static. 
> 
> NAK.. you don't get to expose all this nonsense in a 'stable' ABI.
> 
> You shouldn't need to prod at them to begin with.

So is that means expose those domain flags to user is a bad idea at all?

Is this caused by that people don't need such feature or this feature
has do harm to kernel's stability?(it could be not...)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> --
> 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/
> 


--
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/