Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cgroup/cpuset: return PERR_NOCPUS in remote_partition_enable()

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 9/22/26 4:00 AM, Hui Peng wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 03:08:55PM +0800, Ridong Chen wrote:
>> What is going on here?
>>
>> Please do not reply with a new series. And I think the changes should be listed
>> in the cover letter. Otherwise, it will get very confusing.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I cannot apply this patch. It seems quite different from v2.
> Hi Ridong,
>
> Sorry for the confusion and the noise. Two mistakes happened when I
> prepared v3 after splitting patch 2/2 per Guopeng's feedback:
>
> 1. I mistakenly passed --in-reply-to pointing to the v2 thread and
>     omitted the 0/3 cover letter.
> 2. Patch 1/3 was accidentally overwritten with a broken diff instead of
>     the remote_partition_enable() hunk from v2 1/2:
>
> @@ -1591,10 +1591,11 @@ static int remote_partition_enable(struct cpuset *cs, int new_prs,
>   	 * above it or remote partition root underneath it is not allowed.
>   	 */
>   	compute_excpus(cs, tmp->new_cpus);
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(cpumask_intersects(tmp->new_cpus, subpartitions_cpus));
>   	if (!cpumask_intersects(tmp->new_cpus, cpu_active_mask) ||
>   	    cpumask_subset(top_cpuset.effective_cpus, tmp->new_cpus))
>   		return PERR_INVCPUS;
> +	if (cpumask_intersects(tmp->new_cpus, subpartitions_cpus))
> +		return PERR_NOCPUS;
>
> Would it be OK if I post a clean, standalone [PATCH v4 0/3..3/3] series
> (as a new thread with a 0/3 cover letter listing the changelog and with
> the v2 1/2 diff restored in patch 1/3)?

That diff looks more correct. Please send out a new standalone v4 patch 
series with your patches.

Cheers,
Longman

> Best regards,
> Hui
>