![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:03:50PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: >> Does anyone have a patch to tear it out already? Is the current proc >> interface acceptable, or do we want a syscall interface like wli >> suggests? On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:00:18AM +0000, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > I have no problems with the proc interface; it's ascii so reasonably > extendible in the future for, say, when 64 cpus on > 32 bit linux get supported. It's also not THAT inefficient since my code > only uses it when some binding changes, not all the time. Sorry about that; I forgot about the /proc/ part and thought the thing was based on system calls as it stood. I wouldn't want a redundant interface to be added. My current cpumask_t patches handle extending the /proc/ interface to handle an arbitrary-sized cpumask, so I should have realized this. -- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||