From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757109AbYE3Bwo (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 21:52:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753412AbYE3Bwg (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 21:52:36 -0400 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:62837 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753398AbYE3Bwf (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 May 2008 21:52:35 -0400 Message-ID: <483F5DAA.5060004@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:51:38 +0800 From: Miao Xie Reply-To: miaox@cn.fujitsu.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Jackson CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, menage@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2] cpusets: restructure the function update_cpumask() and update_nodemask() References: <483E564A.5050807@cn.fujitsu.com> <20080529031656.cdc38001.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20080529031656.cdc38001.pj@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 >