> Is the above code equivalant to what the comment states:
>
> if (is_cpu_isolated(trial) <= is_cpu_exclusive(trial))
> return -EINVAL;
I think I got that backwards. How about:
/* An isolated cpuset has to be exclusive */
if (!(is_cpu_isolated(trial) <= is_cp
Dinakar's patch contains:
+ /* Make the change */
+ par->cpus_allowed = t.cpus_allowed;
+ par->isolated_map = t.isolated_map;
Doesn't the above make changes to the parent cpus_allowed without
calling validate_change()? Couldn't we do nasty things like
empty that cpus_allowed, le
A few code details (still working on more substantive reply):
+ /* An isolated cpuset has to be exclusive */
+ if ((is_cpu_isolated(trial) && !is_cpu_exclusive(cur))
+ || (!is_cpu_exclusive(trial) && is_cpu_isolated(cur)))
+ return -EINVAL;
Is the above code eq
Based on the Paul's feedback, I have simplified and cleaned up the
code quite a bit.
o I have taken care of most of the nits, except for the output
format change for cpusets with isolated children.
o Also most of my documentation has been part of my earlier mails
and I have not yet add
4 matches
Mail list logo
