Dinakar wrote:
> Ok, Let me begin at the beginning and attempt to define what I am
> doing here
The statement of requirements and approach help. Thank-you.
And the comments in the code patch are much easier for me
to understand. Thanks.
Let me step back and consider where we are here.
I've n
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:09:46PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Earlier, I wrote to Dinakar:
> > What are your invariants, and how can you assure yourself and us
> > that your code preserves these invariants?
Ok, Let me begin at the beginning and attempt to define what I am
doing here
1. I need
Earlier, I wrote to Dinakar:
> What are your invariants, and how can you assure yourself and us
> that your code preserves these invariants?
I repeat that question.
===
On my first reading of your example, I see the following.
It is sinking into my dense skull more than it had before that your
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 10:23:48AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
>
> How does this play out in your interface? Are you convinced that
> your invariants are preserved at all times, to all users? Can
> you present a convincing argument to others that this is so?
Let me give an example of how the cu
Dinakar wrote:
> I was hoping that by the time we are done with this, we would
> be able to completely get rid of the isolcpus= option.
I won't miss it. Though, since it's in the main line kernel,
do you need to mark it deprecated for a while first?
> For that
> ofcourse we need to be able build
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 10:54:27PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Hmmm ... interesting patch. My reaction to the changes in
> kernel/cpuset.c are complicated:
Thanks Paul for taking time off your vaction to reply to this.
I was expecting to see one of your huge mails but this has
exceeded all my ex
6 matches
Mail list logo
