linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/13] sched: Add 3 new scheduler syscalls to support an extended scheduling parameters ABI

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: <CAKgNAkgw+U44SH0wd_06ZMXaCC9nCX4NZxZHkMKUdC7E7YxBhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:13:22 +0100
From:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dario Faggioli <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, fweisbec@...il.com,
	darren@...art.com, johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	claudio@...dence.eu.com, michael@...rulasolutions.com,
	fchecconi@...il.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it,
	juri.lelli@...il.com, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
	luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	insop.song@...il.com, liming.wang@...driver.com, jkacur@...hat.com,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] sched: Add 3 new scheduler syscalls to support an
 extended scheduling parameters ABI

Peter, Dario,

This is a little late in the day, but I think it's an important point
to just check before this API goes final.

> SYNOPSIS
>         #include <sched.h>
>
>         struct sched_attr {
>                 u32 size;
>
>                 u32 sched_policy;
>                 u64 sched_flags;
[...]
>         };
>
>         int sched_setattr(pid_t pid, const struct sched_attr *attr);
>
>         int sched_getattr(pid_t pid, const struct sched_attr *attr, unsigned int size);

So, I that there's a flags field in the structure, which allows for
some extensibility for these calls in the future. However, is it
worthwhile to consider adding a 'flags' argument in the base signature
of either of these calls, to allow for some possible extensions in the
future. (See http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/585415/7b905c0248a158a2/ ).

Cheers,

Michael
--
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/