Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Mike Travis
Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 8:04 am

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
...

There were some comments previously such that we should "imply" that the
incoming cpumask_t args are const, so the compiler would flag those
who arbitrarily modify it.

...

In a perfect world, no... ;-)
...

Yeah, I rather rushed through the allocation part (yuck indeed ;-).

There are some other alternatives:

	- reserve one or more of these in the task struct
	- reserve one or more in a per-cpu area
	- setup some kind of allocation pool similar to alloc_bootmem
	- ???

Thanks,
Mike
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Wed Sep 10, 3:47 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 10, 3:53 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Wed Sep 10, 4:33 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Andi Kleen, (Wed Sep 10, 10:21 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Peter Zijlstra, (Thu Sep 11, 2:00 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Thu Sep 11, 8:04 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Rusty Russell, (Thu Sep 11, 9:55 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Fri Sep 12, 7:28 am)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Rusty Russell, (Fri Sep 12, 3:02 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, Mike Travis, (Fri Sep 12, 3:50 pm)
Re: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t, H. Peter Anvin, (Fri Sep 12, 3:58 pm)