[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] syscall interface for cpu affinity
Almost... Same effect  (mostly)...

It does, however, leaves us arguing the linguistic semantics of
which name 'who' should have. It seems to me that the most
natural would be with 'who' being the 'name' of the target, and
'which' specifying which name space 'who' is operating in.

UGH: messing with these names via pronouns is too confusing:
How about this:

int sched_set_affinity(int who, int which, unsigned int len,
unsigned long *new_mask_ptr);

'who' being a {process, process-group or user } ID , and
with 'which' being one of {PRIO_PROCESS, PRIO_PGRP, PRIO_USER},
respectively -- specifying which namespace 'who' operates in.

I think that that is what you were trying to say, right?

Andreas Ferber wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:06:04PM -0800, Stephen Samuel wrote:
>> >
>> > int sched_set_affinity(int which, int who, unsigned int len,
>> > unsigned long *new_mask_ptr);
>> >
>> > with who one of {PRIO_PROCESS,PRIO_PGRP,PRIO_USER} and which according
>> > to the value of who.
> Uh, who/which should be just the other way round in the description
> (but not in the prototype). Sorry.
>>I sould suggest that the order be
>>int sched_set_affinity(int who, int which, unsigned int len,
>> unsigned long *new_mask_ptr);
>>This would have the {p,pg}id be the first thing that a programmer
>>would see (likely more important than the 'which'.).

Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426
Powerful committed communication, reaching through fear, uncertainty and
doubt to touch the jewel within each person and bring it to life.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.077 / U:9.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site