Re: [PATCH] Fix argument checking in sched_setaffinity

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:59:22AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>  
> > I notice that you didn't bother with the fractional byte that is handled
> > by 'endmask' in mm/mempolicy.c:get_nodes().  But I really don't give a
> > hoot - either way is fine by me.
> > 
> > I've written a couple of code snippets that manage to intuit the size of
> > the kernel's cpumask dynamically from user space, by probing with
> > various sched_getaffinity() calls.  But since your patch only changes
> > the errors generated by sched_setaffinity() [that's "set", not "get"], I
> > will not experience any grief from this subtle change in the kernel's
> > API.
> > 
> > Should you lock hotplug before calling get_user_cpu_mask(), since
> > get_user_cpu_mask() depends on cpu_online_mask()?
> 
> FYI the NUMA API and affinity code is broken on 64bit big endian. We
> really need a get/set compat bitmap and use it. How does this look?
> Not well tested yet...

Looks good from a quick review. But there is nothing to call it? 

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/