From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/21] scheduler: implement force_cpus_allowed_ptr()
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:44:25 +1030
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-14-generic; KDE/4.3.2; i686; ; )
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, mingo@elte.hu,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com,
       cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com,
       torvalds@linux-foundation.org, avi@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
       andi@firstfloor.org, fweisbec@gmail.com
References: <1258391726-30264-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1258391726-30264-9-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1258391726-30264-9-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200911171544.25355.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 688
Lines: 16

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:45:13 am Tejun Heo wrote:
> Implement force_cpus_allowed_ptr() which is similar to
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() but bypasses PF_THREAD_BOUND check and ignores
> cpu_active() status as long as the target cpu is online.  This will be
> used for concurrency-managed workqueue.

Can we drop the silly _ptr() postfix?  It was a hack someone added to
avoid churning set_cpus_allowed(), and no need to repeat here.

Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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/