Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update_nodemask()

Miao Xie
2008-05-30T01:52:44Z

on 2008-5-29 16:16 Paul Jackson wrote:
[snip]

> 4) Could you do me a little favor, and include the two minor fixes in
> the following patch in your patch? These two fixes aren't worth
> making their own separate submission for. I noticed them when I
> was running the scripts/kernel-doc tool to check the comments for
> my comment (3) above. You can either just add the minor fixes to
> your patch 1 of 2, or you can make the following a third patch in
> your patch set, under your "Signed-off-by" line. It does not matter
> at all to me which way you do it. Take the easy way, which is
> probably just making these three minor changes as part of your
> first patch, just as if they were your code all the time. Thanks!
>
>
> ====================== Begin Patch ======================
> --- 2.6.26-rc2-mm1-pj_efi_patches.orig/kernel/cpuset.c 2008-05-29 00:20:35.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2.6.26-rc2-mm1-pj_efi_patches/kernel/cpuset.c 2008-05-29 00:53:42.478128805 -0700
> @@ -1938,7 +1938,6 @@ void __init cpuset_init_smp(void)
> }
>
> /**
> -
> * cpuset_cpus_allowed - return cpus_allowed mask from a tasks cpuset.
> * @tsk: pointer to task_struct from which to obtain cpuset->cpus_allowed.
> * @pmask: pointer to cpumask_t variable to receive cpus_allowed set.
> @@ -1956,10 +1955,10 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_str
> mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
> }
>
> -/**
> +/*
> * cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked - return cpus_allowed mask from a tasks cpuset.
> * Must be called with callback_mutex held.
> - **/
> + */
> void cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked(struct task_struct *tsk, cpumask_t *pmask)
> {
> task_lock(tsk);
> ======================= End Patch =======================
>

I think that it is unnecessary to change cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked()'s comment
because it isn't a static function, it is a extern function and it is called by
move_task_off_dead_cpu() in kernel/sched.c

>
> 5) You wrote:
> This patch fixes this bug expect for root cpuset.
> Then you analyze the root cpuset problem that remains. I will try
> to think more about that perhaps tomorrow; that won't impede progress
> on this current patch set.
>
>
>
> These patches look very good to me. Please add my Acked-by line
> in your next and I expect final version:
>
> Acked-by: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
>