On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 09:32:53AM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 30/04/14 14:39, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > From: Dietmar Eggemann
> >
> > There is no need to zero struct sched_group member cpumask and struct
> > sched_group_power member power since both structures are alrea
Hi Peter,
On 30/04/14 14:39, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> From: Dietmar Eggemann
>
> There is no need to zero struct sched_group member cpumask and struct
> sched_group_power member power since both structures are already allocated
> as zeroed memory in __sdt_alloc().
>
> This patch has been teste
On 30/04/14 14:39, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> From: Dietmar Eggemann
>
> There is no need to zero struct sched_group member cpumask and struct
> sched_group_power member power since both structures are already allocated
> as zeroed memory in __sdt_alloc().
>
> This patch has been tested with
> BU
From: Dietmar Eggemann
There is no need to zero struct sched_group member cpumask and struct
sched_group_power member power since both structures are already allocated
as zeroed memory in __sdt_alloc().
This patch has been tested with
BUG_ON(!cpumask_empty(sched_group_cpus(sg))); and BUG_ON(sg->
4 matches
Mail list logo