Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Apr 2008 23:21:20 +0200 | From | "Bert Wesarg" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: add cpus_scnprintf function v3 |
| |
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:52:58PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:51:23PM +0200, Bert Wesarg wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote: > > > > > * Cleanup usages of cpumask_scprintf in the following files and add > > > > > another interface to use cpulist_scnprintf where appropriate. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> wrote: > > > > > Part of the change is readability, but also looking towards the future > > > > > of 16k/64k/??? # of cpus, the straight mask approach will overflow the > > > > > PAGE_SIZE buffer provided (though some pathological cases will overflow > > > > > the range method as well.) So we'll need some advancement in the format > > > > > of the printout. > > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > Huh? > > > > > > sysfs is "one value per file", if you are getting close to PAGE_SIZE in > > > any sysfs file, then you are doing something very wrong. > > > > > > What sysfs file currently is trying to output data this big? > > Currently none. But if NR_CPUS >= 16K and PAGE_SIZE == 4K, than any > > file with an cpumask_scnprintf(). > > Do we have such sysfs files today? Files with cpumask_scnprintf()? Sure, the cpu topology exports plenty of cpu masks.
If you ask for files with that big NR_CPUS, than no. We are talking only for future scenarios.
Bert > > thanks, > > greg k-h >
| |