lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] x86: add cpus_scnprintf function v3
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote:
> > > Bert wrote:
> > > > Btw, I think you can now push for a deprecation of the 'old' mask
> > > > attributes, with the justification you have given above. The other
> > > > possibility is to change sysfs to provide bigger attribute buffers
> > > > (CCed Greg for this).
> > >
> > > On the other hand, and my main point of this message, I can't
> > > see deprecating the mask format files on account of this sort
> > > of analysis.
> > >
> > My statement from above doesn't reflect my opinion. I'm still in
> > flavor with the mask output. And from this discussion, I found a new
> > point for the mask output: its bounded ;-)
> >
> > I just wanted to note, that these new list attributes would be the
> > only way to 'change' the api, ie. introduce a new api and deprecate
> > the old one, and not change the format of the present api.
> >
> > Unfortunately, to support the mask attributes beyond 4k cpus, sysfs
> > has to support greater attribute buffers.
>
> Well, it does already today, you just have to work at it :)
>
> What we can do for these types of files, is to use the "binary
> attribute" file format. With that, you get full control over the buffer
> size and other operations.
>
> So someone should just wrap up the cpu mask sysfs file usage in a
> function that uses the binary attribute instead. Then everyone who uses
> the cpu mask in a sysfs file can use that function instead.
>
> Sound reasonable?
Very. Thanks.

Bert
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-10 19:39    [W:0.104 / U:3.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site