Re: [PATCH] Fix cpuset sched_relax_domain_level control file

[Li Zefan]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Paul M wrote:
>> I was just trying to get close to the original behaviour.
> 
> An honorable goal.
> 
> Li Zefan - would you be interested in generating a patch
> that fails -EINVAL for inputs outside the range of [-1 ... N]
> for whatever small positive N the kernel recognizes?
> 
> This seems like a minor enough difference that I for one
> don't have any problem with the current code, remapping
> all negative inputs to -1, going in, and then a follow-on
> patch changing that going in afterward.
> 
> Of course, if you or Seto-san prefer the current behaviour,
> it would be easy to persuade me to agree.
> 

I prefer to put a limit on it, but as Andrew just said, we don't
need to rush for this. But sure I'll post a patch if Seto-san
doesn't have an objection on this.
--
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/