Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:21:12 +0100 | From | Heinrich Schuchardt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3 v5] kernel/fork.c: new function for max_threads |
| |
On 24.02.2015 23:16, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>> I'm afraid I don't understand this. The intent of the patch is to >>> separate the max_threads logic into a new function, correct? If that's >>> true, then I don't understand why UINT_MAX is being introduced into this >>> path and passed to the new function when it is ignored. >>> >>> I think it would be better to simply keep passing mempages to fork_init() >>> and then pass it to set_max_threads() where max_threads actually gets set >>> using the argument passed. At least, the code would then match the intent >>> of the patch. >>> >> Please, read patch 2/3 which provides support for the argument, >> and patch 3/3 that finally needs it. >> > > The problem is with the structure of your patchset. You want three > patches. There's one bugfix patch, a preparation patch, and a feature > patch. The bugfix patch should come first so that it can be applied, > possibly, to stable kernels and doesn't depend on unnecessary preparation > patches for features. > > 1/3: change the implementation of fork_init(), with commentary, to avoid > the divide by zero on certain arches, enforce the limits, and deal with > variable types to prevent overflow. This is the most urgent patch and > fixes a bug. > > 2/3: simply extract the fixed fork_init() implementation into a new > set_max_threads() in preparation to use it for threads-max, (hint: > UINT_MAX and ignored arguments should not appear in this patch), > > 3/3: use the new set_max_threads() implementation for threads-max with an > update to the documentation. > Hello Ingo,
the current structure of the patch set is based on your suggestion in https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/22/22
Would you agree with the sequence of patches proposed by David?
Best regards
Heinrich
| |