Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:40:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:40:25 -0500 Received: from harpo.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.34]:10712 "EHLO harpo.it.uu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:40:24 -0500 From: Mikael Pettersson MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15851.40133.974155.446342@harpo.it.uu.se> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 18:47:49 +0100 To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] set_cpus_allowed() for 2.4 In-Reply-To: <20021202195120.A25954@sgi.com> References: <1033513407.12959.91.camel@phantasy> <20021104223725.A23168@sgi.com> <15851.37989.723028.614451@harpo.it.uu.se> <20021202195120.A25954@sgi.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under Emacs 20.7.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 888 Lines: 22 Christoph Hellwig writes: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:12:05PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > Is this implementation of set_cpus_allowed() Ok for all 2.4 kernels, > > even if they (like RH8.0's) use a non-vanilla scheduler? > > No, it's for the stock scheduler. But RH8.0 already has set_cpus_allowed(). I knew RH8.0 has set_cpus_allowed(), but I wanted to avoid having to check for being compiled in a RH-hacked kernel. LINUX_VERSION_CODE doesn't distinguish between standard and "with tons of vendor-specific changes" :-( I'll use your code then on stock 2.4 kernels, and work out some kludge for the RH case. Thanks, /Mikael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/