Li Zefan wrote: > 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? >> > partition_sched_domains() says (0, NULL, ...) is used for destroying existing domains, (1, NULL, ...) will fallback to the single default domain. But partition_sched_domains() is a stub if !CONFIG_SMP > 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; > } > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers