![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 05:51:17PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > If that is the case, I think we can push container_lock entirely inside > cpuset.c and not have others exposed to this double-lock complexity. > This is possible because cpuset.c (build on top of containers) still has > cpuset->parent and walking cpuset->parent list safely can be made > possible with a second lock which is local to only cpuset.c. Hope I am not shooting in the dark here! If we can indeed avoid container_lock in generic code, it will simplify code like attach_task (for ex: post_attach/attach can be clubbed into one single callback). -- Regards, vatsa - 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: 2007-03-07 15:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||