From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: mingo@elte.hu
Cc: Joe Korty <l-k@mindspring.com>,
Ryan Cumming <bodnar42@phalynx.dhs.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: procfs bloat, syscall bloat [in reference to cpu affinity]
Date: 27 Nov 2001 15:56:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1006894583.819.4.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111271227540.9787-100000@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111271227540.9787-100000@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 2001-11-27 at 06:32, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I am not against a proc interface per se, I would like a proc
> > interface, especially for the reading of affinity values. But in my
> > view the system call interface should also exist and it should be the
> > dominate way of communicating affinity to processes.
>
> i'm not against the /proc interface either - on the contrary, i've picked
> it when implementing /proc/irq/<NR>/smp_affinity.
What if we kept the procfs interface for read only and keep both
syscalls for read and write ?
The proc read interface is 2 lines of code in one function ... very much
of my patch would be gone. Again, personally, I'd like to see proc for
writing and reading, but ...
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-27 20:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-22 8:59 [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9 Ingo Molnar
2001-11-22 20:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-11-22 23:45 ` Robert Love
2001-11-23 0:20 ` Ryan Cumming
2001-11-23 0:36 ` Mark Hahn
2001-11-23 11:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-24 22:44 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-11-23 0:51 ` Robert Love
2001-11-23 1:11 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-11-23 1:16 ` Robert Love
2001-11-23 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-24 2:01 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-11-27 3:39 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 7:13 ` Joe Korty
2001-11-27 20:53 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 21:31 ` Nathan Dabney
2001-11-27 8:04 ` procfs bloat, syscall bloat [in reference to cpu affinity] Joe Korty
2001-11-27 11:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-27 20:56 ` Robert Love [this message]
2001-11-27 14:04 ` Phil Howard
2001-11-27 18:05 ` Tim Hockin
2001-11-27 8:40 ` [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9 Ingo Molnar
2001-11-27 4:41 ` a nohup-like interface to cpu affinity Linux maillist account
2001-11-27 4:49 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 6:32 ` Linux maillist account
2001-11-27 6:39 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 8:42 ` Sean Hunter
2001-12-06 1:35 ` Matthew Dobson
2001-12-06 1:37 ` [RFC][PATCH] cpus_allowed/launch_policy patch, 2.4.16 Matthew Dobson
2001-12-06 2:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-12-06 2:17 ` Matthew Dobson
2001-12-06 2:39 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-12-06 2:42 ` Robert Love
2001-12-06 22:21 ` Matthew Dobson
2001-11-27 6:50 ` a nohup-like interface to cpu affinity Linux maillist account
2001-11-27 8:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-23 11:02 ` [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9 Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1006894583.819.4.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=bodnar42@phalynx.dhs.org \
--cc=l-k@mindspring.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox