Rasmus Villemoes writes:
> On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
>>
>> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
>> wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on
On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote:
> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
>
> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
> wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on
> the stack (or passing by
On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote:
> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
>
> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
> wasn't defined, so we could catch people declaring 'struct cpumask' on
> the
Rasmus Villemoes writes:
> On Sun, Sep 27 2015, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
>> But to be clear, it has outlived its usefulness, but it was not useless.
>>
>> In particular, there used to be a debug config where 'struct cpumask'
>> wasn't defined, so we
Rasmus Villemoes writes:
> Maybe third time's the charm...
>
> The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
> exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
> cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
> the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz.
Rasmus Villemoes writes:
> Maybe third time's the charm...
>
> The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
> exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
> cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
> the exposed
Maybe third time's the charm...
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code
throughout the
Maybe third time's the charm...
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code
throughout the
On Thu, May 07 2015, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
> exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
> cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
> the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit
On Thu, May 07 2015, Rasmus Villemoes li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk wrote:
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz.
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code
throughout the kernel which iterates over or
The four cpumasks cpu_{possible,online,present,active}_bits are
exposed readonly via the corresponding const variables
cpu_xyz_mask. But they are also accessible for arbitrary writing via
the exposed functions set_cpu_xyz. There's quite a bit of code
throughout the kernel which iterates over or
12 matches
Mail list logo