Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-mm1] Mempolicy: silently restrict nodemask to allowed nodes V3

[Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>]

On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 10:32 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure why you don't want to require the nodemask to be NULL/empty
> > in the case of MPOL_DEFAULT.  Perhaps it's from a code complexity
> > viewpoint.  Or maybe you think we're being kind to the programmer by
> > cutting them some slack.  Vis a vis the latter, I would argue that we're
> > not doing a programmer any favor by letting this slide by.  MPOL_DEFAULT
> > takes no nodemask.  So, if a non-empty nodemask is passed, the
> > programmer has done something wrong. 
> > 
> 
> I mentioned on LKML that I've currently folded all the current logic of 
> mpol_check_policy() as it stands this minute in Linus' tree into 
> mpol_new() so that non-empty nodemasks are no longer accepted for 
> MPOL_DEFAULT.
> 

Right.  That's why I mentioned "beating a dead horse".  I was answering
mail this morning in the order I read them.  This seemed to me to
warrant a response, independent of the lkml stream.  Again, just to get
on the same page.  Honest.  Not just to be a <insert whatever you might
be thinking here>... :-)

Thanks,
Lee

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>