[PATCH] Allow cpusets to be configured/built on non-SMP systems
menage at google.com
Tue Mar 3 00:26:42 PST 2009
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Paul Menage <menage at google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Li Zefan <lizf at cn.fujitsu.com> 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?
Given that this return code only matters when CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU &&
!CONFIG_SMP it's unlikely to ever be used, but I guess it's better to
get it right.
More information about the Containers