Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:25:18 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix sys cpumap for > 352 NR_CPUS |
| |
> Honestly, I dislike the static check altogether ...
The build time check was your idea in the first place, as I recall. I hadn't added it to my variants. Apparently we agree not to add it. Ok.
> Because now you have silently truncated, which is much worse than
I absolutely agree with your dislike of hidden intermittent failures.
For a constant failure such as this, even if everyone misses the botch for the first few times that SGI boots a bazillion CPU system in the lab, it will get noticed soon enough. This is in fact exactly what happened with the 99 char limit that was there now.
> len = cpumask_scnprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, mask); > if (len == PAGE_SIZE) > return -ENOMEM;
That looks nice.
If you want me to add the "if (len ..." check, let me know. Or if you want to send Andrew a patch that adds it, I'll gladly support that.
==> Do note that I had to change the -1UL to PAGE_SIZE, in a patch to Andrew about 12 hours ago. The *scnprintf() family of fine formatting functions suppresses all requested output if handed a length with the high bit set.
> That would be extremely unusual; we tend not to panic ...
Yup - I think it was Greg who said the same thing. Clearly this is not a panic.
I was wrong to suggest panic'ing here.
> I'll do it; seems like we need negotiation with Greg-KH, too.
Ok - have fun.
> I question anyone's ability to produce a perfectly balanced solution > without any external input.
Whatever ... my view of who was saying and doing what here doesn't entirely match yours.
So be it.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373 - 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/
| |