Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:47:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:47:10 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:25335 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:47:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] scheduler bits from 2.5.23-dj1 From: Robert Love To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel , James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.7 Date: 19 Jun 2002 16:47:00 -0700 Message-Id: <1024530423.917.21.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 913 Lines: 26 On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 16:35, Ingo Molnar wrote: > the scheduler optimisation in 2.5.23-dj1, from James Bottomley, look fine > to me. I did some modifications: Nice. > +static inline unsigned int task_cpu(struct task_struct *p) > +static inline unsigned int set_task_cpu(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int cpu) Technically, shouldn't we make these `unsigned long' ? I know on x86 we store cpu as a `u32' so it does not matter per se, but in reality it is an unsigned long and other architectures may export it as such. Further, we compare and set it against the various CPU bitmaps and they are all `unsigned long' and we do shifts against 1UL ... Robert Love - 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/