[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121226120415.GA18193@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 07:04:15 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc: paul@...lmenage.org, glommer@...allels.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mhocko@...e.cz, bsingharora@...il.com,
hannes@...xchg.org, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] cpuset: cleanup cpuset[_can]_attach()
(cc'ing Rusty, hi!)
Hello, Li.
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 06:20:11PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2012/11/29 5:34, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > cpuset_can_attach() prepare global variables cpus_attach and
> > cpuset_attach_nodemask_{to|from} which are used by cpuset_attach().
> > There is no reason to prepare in cpuset_can_attach(). The same
> > information can be accessed from cpuset_attach().
> >
> > Move the prepartion logic from cpuset_can_attach() to cpuset_attach()
> > and make the global variables static ones inside cpuset_attach().
> >
> > While at it, convert cpus_attach to cpumask_t from cpumask_var_t.
> > There's no reason to mess with dynamic allocation on a static buffer.
> >
>
> But Rusty had been deprecating the use of cpumask_t. I don't know why
> the final deprecation hasn't been completed yet.
Hmmm? cpumask_t can't be used for stack but other than that I don't
see how it would be deprecated completely. Rusty, can you please
chime in?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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