Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: add cpus_scnprintf function v3

[Bert Wesarg]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 06:14:55PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote:
>  > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>  > > Bert wrote:
>  > >  > Btw, I think you can now push for a deprecation of the 'old' mask
>  > >  > attributes, with the justification you have given above. The other
>  > >  > possibility is to change sysfs to provide bigger attribute buffers
>  > >  > (CCed Greg for this).
>  > >
>  > >  On the other hand, and my main point of this message, I can't
>  > >  see deprecating the mask format files on account of this sort
>  > >  of analysis.
>  > >
>  > My statement from above doesn't reflect my opinion. I'm still in
>  > flavor with the mask output. And from this discussion, I found a new
>  > point for the mask output: its bounded ;-)
>  >
>  > I just wanted to note, that these new list attributes would be the
>  > only way to 'change' the api, ie. introduce a new api and deprecate
>  > the old one, and not change the format of the present api.
>  >
>  > Unfortunately, to support the mask attributes beyond 4k cpus, sysfs
>  > has to support greater attribute buffers.
>
>  Well, it does already today, you just have to work at it :)
>
>  What we can do for these types of files, is to use the "binary
>  attribute" file format.  With that, you get full control over the buffer
>  size and other operations.
>
>  So someone should just wrap up the cpu mask sysfs file usage in a
>  function that uses the binary attribute instead.  Then everyone who uses
>  the cpu mask in a sysfs file can use that function instead.
>
>  Sound reasonable?
Very. Thanks.

Bert
>
>  thanks,
>
>  greg k-h
>
--
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/