On Tue, 24 Feb 2015, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > > I'm afraid I don't understand this. The intent of the patch is to > > separate the max_threads logic into a new function, correct? If that's > > true, then I don't understand why UINT_MAX is being introduced into this > > path and passed to the new function when it is ignored. > > > > I think it would be better to simply keep passing mempages to fork_init() > > and then pass it to set_max_threads() where max_threads actually gets set > > using the argument passed. At least, the code would then match the intent > > of the patch. > > > Please, read patch 2/3 which provides support for the argument, > and patch 3/3 that finally needs it. >
The problem is with the structure of your patchset. You want three patches. There's one bugfix patch, a preparation patch, and a feature patch. The bugfix patch should come first so that it can be applied, possibly, to stable kernels and doesn't depend on unnecessary preparation patches for features. 1/3: change the implementation of fork_init(), with commentary, to avoid the divide by zero on certain arches, enforce the limits, and deal with variable types to prevent overflow. This is the most urgent patch and fixes a bug. 2/3: simply extract the fixed fork_init() implementation into a new set_max_threads() in preparation to use it for threads-max, (hint: UINT_MAX and ignored arguments should not appear in this patch), 3/3: use the new set_max_threads() implementation for threads-max with an update to the documentation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
