Messages in this thread Patch in this message |  | | From | Dongsheng Yang <> | Subject | [PATCH 6/9] sched: Replace hardcoding of -20 and 19 with MIN_NICE and MAX_NICE. | Date | Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:34:50 +0800 |
| |
Signed-off-by: Dongsheng Yang <yangds.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> --- kernel/sched/auto_group.c | 2 +- kernel/sched/core.c | 12 ++++++------ 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/auto_group.c b/kernel/sched/auto_group.c index 4a07353..e73efba 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/auto_group.c +++ b/kernel/sched/auto_group.c @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ int proc_sched_autogroup_set_nice(struct task_struct *p, int nice) struct autogroup *ag; int err; - if (nice < -20 || nice > 19) + if (nice < MIN_NICE || nice > MAX_NICE) return -EINVAL; err = security_task_setnice(current, nice); diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 104c816..46cf585 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -3000,7 +3000,7 @@ void set_user_nice(struct task_struct *p, long nice) unsigned long flags; struct rq *rq; - if (task_nice(p) == nice || nice < -20 || nice > 19) + if (task_nice(p) == nice || nice < MIN_NICE || nice > MAX_NICE) return; /* * We have to be careful, if called from sys_setpriority(), @@ -3079,10 +3079,10 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(nice, int, increment) increment = 40; nice = task_nice(current) + increment; - if (nice < -20) - nice = -20; - if (nice > 19) - nice = 19; + if (nice < MIN_NICE) + nice = MIN_NICE; + if (nice > MAX_NICE) + nice = MAX_NICE; if (increment < 0 && !can_nice(current, nice)) return -EPERM; @@ -3605,7 +3605,7 @@ static int sched_copy_attr(struct sched_attr __user *uattr, * XXX: do we want to be lenient like existing syscalls; or do we want * to be strict and return an error on out-of-bounds values? */ - attr->sched_nice = clamp(attr->sched_nice, -20, 19); + attr->sched_nice = clamp(attr->sched_nice, MIN_NICE, MAX_NICE); out: return ret; -- 1.8.2.1
|  |