[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160216160801.GM3741@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:08:01 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/22] kthread: Add create_kthread_worker*()
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 04:44:43PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I wanted to be sure. The cpu number is later passed to
> cpu_to_node(cpu) in kthread_create_on_cpu().
>
> I am going to replace this with a check against nr_cpu_ids in
> kthread_create_on_cpu() which makes more sense.
>
> I might be too paranoid. But this is slow path. People
> do mistakes...
idk, that just ended up adding a subtly broken code which checks for
an unlikely condition which would cause a crash anyway. I don't see
the point. If you want to insist on it, please at least make it a
WARN_ON(). It's a clear kernel bug.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists