Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:36:12 +0200 | From | "Bert Wesarg" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: add cpus_scnprintf function v3 |
| |
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> 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@sgi.com> 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 >
| |