Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed_ptr

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>> And I was hoping to do -rc3 today. Can I please have pull-requests for the 
> >>> appropriate urgent scheduler/x86 fixes? Or should I just take these as 
> >>> patches?
> >> It'd be nice if -rc3 included my cpuset patch so that we could put circular
> >> locking issues in the cpu hotplug path to the rest.
> >> Ingo, I'm talking about this:
> >> 	[PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)
> > 
> > the latest (-v4) version of the patch was submitted just half an hour 
> > ago and it's rather large/complex, with a few unrelated changes 
> > (whitespace, etc.) mixed in as well. I'd like to wait for Paul's final 
> > ack for -v4 (he has already agreed with the approach in general), and 
> > wanted to have it tested myself as well, at least minimally.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> btw Whitespace and other cosmetic changes were requested by reviewers.

yeah - it just makes it a tiny bit harder decision whether to queue up a 
patch in the urgent path.

It's better to keep cleanups separate - that way any typos and 
unintended bugs in cleanups are more obvious as well. (because later on 
a person debugging a breakage does not have to wonder about whether a 
change's side-effects were intended or not.)

But your patch certainly looks OK standalone as well, just IMO not as a 
very-last-minute patch. (No strong feelings though, your patch should 
not break anything in the normal !CPUSETS or the CPUSETS+no-cpuset-used 
usecases.)

	Ingo