From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751814AbdBFWDN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:03:13 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:33732 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751172AbdBFWDM (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:03:12 -0500
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:03:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 78/89] sched/core: Remove the tsk_cpus_allowed() wrapper
Message-ID: <20170206220308.GA7481@gmail.com>
References: <1486387772-18837-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org>
 <1486387772-18837-79-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org>
 <20170206145908.GO6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170206145908.GO6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/sysfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sparc-us2e-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sparc-us3-cpufreq.c

> > -	cpumask_copy(&cpus_allowed, tsk_cpus_allowed(current));
> > +	cpumask_copy(&cpus_allowed, &current->cpus_allowed);
> 
> Note that all those, and this is where I stopped looking, appear broken vs 
> userspace changing the mask right after.

But these are pre-existing bugs in code twidding ->cpus_allowed, not caused by my 
patch, right?

I.e. my changes made you notice pre-existing bugs.

Thanks,

	Ingo