Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262686AbVENC7Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 22:59:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262687AbVENC7Q (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 22:59:16 -0400 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:32941 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262686AbVENC7L (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2005 22:59:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 19:58:51 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: dipankar@in.ibm.com Cc: vatsa@in.ibm.com, dino@in.ibm.com, ntl@pobox.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, akpm@osdl.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets+hotplug+preepmt broken Message-Id: <20050513195851.5d6665d0.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20050513210251.GI5044@in.ibm.com> References: <20050511191654.GA3916@in.ibm.com> <20050511195156.GE3614@otto> <20050513123216.GB3968@in.ibm.com> <20050513172540.GA28018@in.ibm.com> <20050513125953.66a59436.pj@sgi.com> <20050513202058.GE5044@in.ibm.com> <20050513135233.6eba49df.pj@sgi.com> <20050513210251.GI5044@in.ibm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.0 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1410 Lines: 35 Dipankar, replying to pj: > > What part of what I wrote are you saying "No" to? > > The question right above "No" :) Well ... that was less than obvious. You quoted too much, and responded with information about other semaphores, not about why other duties of _this_ semaphore made such a rename wrong. Fortunately, Nathan clarified matters. So how would you, or Srivatsa or Nathan, respond to my more substantive point, to repeat: Srivatsa, replying to Dinakar: > This in fact was the reason that we added lock_cpu_hotplug > in sched_setaffinity. Why just in sched_setaffinity()? What about the other 60+ calls to set_cpus_allowed(). Shouldn't most of those calls be checking that the passed in cpus are online (holding lock_cpu_hotplug while doing all this)? Either that, or at least handling the error from set_cpus_allowed() if the requested cpus end up not being online? I see only 2 set_cpus_allowed() calls that make any pretense of examining the return value. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401 - 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/