Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:56:52 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, mbligh@google.com, menage@google.com, Simon.Derr@bull.net,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dino@in.ibm.com, rohitseth@google.com,
       holt@sgi.com, dipankar@in.ibm.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset: add interface to isolated cpus
Message-Id: <20061019115652.562054ca.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <4537BEDA.8030005@yahoo.com.au>
References: <20061019092607.17547.68979.sendpatchset@sam.engr.sgi.com>
	<453750AA.1050803@yahoo.com.au>
	<20061019105515.080675fb.pj@sgi.com>
	<4537BEDA.8030005@yahoo.com.au>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 992
Lines: 26

> > So ... where should it be done?
> 
> sched.c I suppose.

Are we discussing where the implementing code should go,
or where the isolated cpu map special file should be
exposed to user space?

And you didn't answer my other questions, such as:
 1) If your other patch to manipulate sched domains
    has code that belongs in kernel/cpuset.c, and
    special files that belong in /dev/cpuset, why
    shouldn't this one naturally go in the same places?
 2) Why ... why?  What would be better about sched.c
    and what's wrong with where it is (the code and
    the exposed file)?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 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/