on 2008-5-29 16:16 Paul Jackson wrote:
[snip]

quoted text
>  4) Could you do me a little favor, and include the two minor fixes in
>     the following patch in your patch?  These two fixes aren't worth
>     making their own separate submission for.  I noticed them when I
>     was running the scripts/kernel-doc tool to check the comments for
>     my comment (3) above.  You can either just add the minor fixes to
>     your patch 1 of 2, or you can make the following a third patch in
>     your patch set, under your "Signed-off-by" line.  It does not matter
>     at all to me which way you do it.  Take the easy way, which is
>     probably just making these three minor changes as part of your
>     first patch, just as if they were your code all the time.  Thanks!
> 
> 
> ====================== Begin Patch ======================
> --- 2.6.26-rc2-mm1-pj_efi_patches.orig/kernel/cpuset.c	2008-05-29 00:20:35.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2.6.26-rc2-mm1-pj_efi_patches/kernel/cpuset.c	2008-05-29 00:53:42.478128805 -0700
> @@ -1938,7 +1938,6 @@ void __init cpuset_init_smp(void)
>  }
>  
>  /**
> -
>   * cpuset_cpus_allowed - return cpus_allowed mask from a tasks cpuset.
>   * @tsk: pointer to task_struct from which to obtain cpuset->cpus_allowed.
>   * @pmask: pointer to cpumask_t variable to receive cpus_allowed set.
> @@ -1956,10 +1955,10 @@ void cpuset_cpus_allowed(struct task_str
>  	mutex_unlock(&callback_mutex);
>  }
>  
> -/**
> +/*
>   * cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked - return cpus_allowed mask from a tasks cpuset.
>   * Must be called with callback_mutex held.
> - **/
> + */
>  void cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked(struct task_struct *tsk, cpumask_t *pmask)
>  {
>  	task_lock(tsk);
> ======================= End Patch =======================
>

I think that it is unnecessary to change cpuset_cpus_allowed_locked()'s comment
because it isn't a static function, it is a extern function and it is called by
move_task_off_dead_cpu() in kernel/sched.c 
 
quoted text
> 
>  5) You wrote:
> 	This patch fixes this bug expect for root cpuset.
>     Then you analyze the root cpuset problem that remains.  I will try
>     to think more about that perhaps tomorrow; that won't impede progress
>     on this current patch set.
> 
> 
> 
> These patches look very good to me.  Please add my Acked-by line
> in your next and I expect final version:
> 
> Acked-by: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
> 



--
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/