On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 02:16:36PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 13:58:09 +0900 > > Byungchul Park <byungchul.p...@lge.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello Steven, > >> > >> I've changed the code a little bit to avoid a compile warning caused by > >> 'const' args of find_cpu(). Can I keep your Reviewed-by? > >> > >> BEFORE: > >> static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask, > >> const struct sched_domain *sd, > >> const struct sched_domain *prefer) > >> > >> AFTER: > >> static int find_cpu(const struct cpumask *mask, > >> struct sched_domain *sd, > >> struct sched_domain *prefer) > >> > >> (I temporarily removed the Reviewed-by you gave me.) > >> Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rost...@goodmis.org> > > > > I would fix sched_domain_span() to take a constant and keep the > > previous patch. > > Right. I also considered it like you and asked it here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/11/106 > > But I didn't get any answer so tried to keep sched_domain_span() > unchanged conservatively. > > Peterz, what's your opinion?
Maintainers, Peter and Ingo, I believe it would be OK, even better to change sched_domain_span() itself. But I wonder if you also think so, do you? > > > > -- Steve > > -- > Thanks, > Byungchul
