On Mon, Feb 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +static int cpu_rt_runtime_write(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> + struct file *file,
> + const char __user *userbuf,
> + size_t nbytes, loff_t *unused_ppos)
> +{
> + char buffer[64];
> + int retval = 0;
> + s64 val;
> + char *end;
> +
> + if (!nbytes)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (nbytes >= sizeof(buffer))
> + return -E2BIG;
> + if (copy_from_user(buffer, userbuf, nbytes))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + buffer[nbytes] = 0; /* nul-terminate */
> +
> + /* strip newline if necessary */
> + if (nbytes && (buffer[nbytes-1] == '\n'))
> + buffer[nbytes-1] = 0;
> + val = simple_strtoll(buffer, &end, 0);
> + if (*end)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + /* Pass to subsystem */
> + retval = sched_group_set_rt_runtime(cgroup_tg(cgrp), val);
> + if (!retval)
> + retval = nbytes;
> + return retval;
> }
>
> -static u64 cpu_rt_ratio_read_uint(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft)
> -{
> - struct task_group *tg = cgroup_tg(cgrp);
> +static ssize_t cpu_rt_runtime_read(struct cgroup *cgrp, struct cftype *cft,
> + struct file *file,
> + char __user *buf, size_t nbytes,
> + loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + char tmp[64];
> + long val = sched_group_rt_runtime(cgroup_tg(cgrp));
> + int len = sprintf(tmp, "%ld\n", val);
>
> - return (u64) tg->rt_ratio;
> + return simple_read_from_buffer(buf, nbytes, ppos, tmp, len);
> }
What's the reason that you can't use the cgroup read_uint/write_uint
methods for this? Is it just because you have -1 as your "unlimited"
value.
If so, could we avoid that problem by using 0 rather than -1 as the
"unlimited" value? It looks from what I've read in the Documentation
changes as though 0 isn't really a meaningful value.
Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
