lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 0/4] CPUSET driven CPU isolation
    David, responding to pj, responding to ...:
    >
    > > > Move the watchdog/0 thread to a cpuset that doesn't have access to cpu 0.
    > >
    > > I still don't understand ... you must have some context in mind that
    > > I've spaced out ... I can't even tell if that is a statement or a
    > > question.
    > >
    >
    > You said that you weren't aware of any problems that could arise that are
    > fixed with this added check in set_cpus_allowed(),

    Ok, now I understand your question - thanks.

    I think your question arises from misreading what I wrote.

    I did not say that I wasn't "aware of any problems that could arise"

    I did say, as you quoted, from Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:37:28 -0600:
    >
    > I don't have strong opinions either way on this patch; it adds an error
    > check that makes sense. I haven't seen much problem not having this check,
    > nor do I know of any code that depends on doing what this check prohibits.

    - This does not say no (none whatsoever) problem could (ever in the future) arise.

    - This does say not much (just a little) problem had arisen (so far in the past).

    Apparently, you thought I was trying to reject the patch on the grounds
    that no such problem could ever occur, and you were showing how such a
    problem could occur. I wasn't trying to reject the patch, and I agree
    that the check made sense, and I agree that such a problem could occur,
    as your example shows.

    --
    I won't rest till it's the best ...
    Programmer, Linux Scalability
    Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-29 04:37    [W:0.341 / U:0.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site