Messages in this thread |  | | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Date | Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:37:36 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.4-ac task->cpu abstraction and optimization |
| |
Robert Love writes: > On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 02:52, Mikael Pettersson wrote: > > > This is fairly similar to the "up-opt" patch I have been using for my > > 2.4 standard (not -ac) kernels since last winter, available as > > <http://www.csd.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/patches/2.4/patch-up-opt-2.4.20-pre6>. > > It's not a direct substitute for yours, since -ac changes kernel/sched.c > > quite a bit, and it has some unnecessary patches to SMP code, but other > > than that, I totally agree with the intention of your patch. > > Good ;) > > I should of added this is from 2.5; so it has been around for awhile. I
Actually, the 2.5 patch sort of originates from my 2.4 patch: I did a 2.5 version, Dave Jones included it in the -dj kernel, and Ingo pulled it out and pushed it into Linus' kernel.
> also took a look at your patch -- looks good, you should submit it to > Marcelo... it cannot hurt for 2.4.
I might do that, unless Alan plans on pushing the -ac sched.c stuff to Marcelo, in which case my patch would just confuse things. Alan?
> - int processor; > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > + int processor; /* keep old name to avoid upsetting all archs */ > +#endif > > It is normally bad form to have conditionally entries in the > task_struct... otherwise, looks good.
I did that mainly to help catch unconverted references to ->processor. It's easy enough to clean out.
/Mikael - 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/
|  |