Paul Menage wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Paul Menage <menage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +static int generate_sched_domains(struct cpumask **domains,
>>>> + struct sched_domain_attr **attributes)
>>>> +{
>>> Except here should "return 0;", otherwise emit a compile warining.
>>>
>> Good catch - the weird thing is that (in my UML build) it doesn't
>> actually generate that warning. Mysterious.
>>
>> I'll resend with the extra return.
>
> After looking at the sched domains code it's not clear to me that
> returning 0 is necessarily the right thing to do -
> partition_sched_domains() says that 0 is a special case used for
> destroying existing domains? Would returning 1 and setting up a single
> dummy domain be better?
>
Yes, return 1 seems more reasonable. And if we do this, should we also set
*domains to NULL like this?
static int generate_sched_domains(struct cpumask **domains,
struct sched_domain_attr **attributes)
{
*domains = NULL;
return 1;
}
because otherwise partition_sched_domains() will access invalid memory:
void partition_sched_domains(int ndoms_new, struct cpumask *doms_new,
struct sched_domain_attr *dattr_new)
{
...
n = doms_new ? ndoms_new : 0;
for (i = 0; i < ndoms_cur; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < n && !new_topology; j++) {
// *****here*****/
if (cpumask_equal(&doms_cur[i], &doms_new[j])
&& dattrs_equal(dattr_cur, i, dattr_new, j))
goto match1;
}
...
}
> Given that this return code only matters when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU &&
> !CONFIG_SMP it's unlikely to ever be used
That's why I didn't comment on this.
> but I guess it's better to get it right.
>
But I agree with you. :)
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
