Max wrote:
quoted text
> Please take a look at
> 	[PATCH 2/2] cpusets: Improved irq affinity handling
> I'm treating irqs just like tasks (at least I think I'm :).

Well, I see the one comment in your Patch 2/2 noting you're unsure
of the locking in one place.

I don't see any further comments on or additional code involving
locking.

I don't see where you respond to my discussion with Peter of March
6 and 7, where I expressed some doubts about Peters patch (which you
built on in your patch 1/2 in this series).

I see only a little bit of additional comments in your patch 2/2
regarding handling of moving irqs to higher non-empty cpusets if a
cpuset is emptied of its CPUs.

I don't see any explanation of what you mean by "desired semantics."

I don't see any response to the alternatives to Peter's earlier patch
(your Patch 1/2 here) that Peter and I discussed in that discussion of
March 6 and 7.

And, in particular, could you respond to the question in my last
message:

quoted text
> What semantics to you impose on irqs in overlapping cpusets,
> which would seem to lead to conflicting directives as to
> whether one set or another of irqs was to be applied to the
> CPUs in the overlap?

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.940.382.4214
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/