Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41

[Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> At some point in the past, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> 
>>>>+asmlinkage long sys_mem_setbinding(pid_t pid, unsigned long memblks, 
>>>>+				    unsigned int behavior)
>>>
> 
> On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 11:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>>Do you really think exposing low level internals as memory layout / zone
>>>split up to userspace is a good idea ? (and worth it given that the VM
>>>already has a cpu locality preference?)
>>
> 
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
>>At least in the embedded world that level is a good idea. I'm not sure
>>about the syscall interface. An "unsigned long" mask of blocks sounds
>>like a good way to ensure a broken syscall in the future
> Seconded wrt. memblk bitmask interface.
Glad to have your support!  :)

> Also, I've already privately replied with some of my stylistic concerns,
> including things like the separability of the for_each_in_zonelist()
> cleanup bundled into the patch and a typedef or so.
Some very good points in your email.  Most (if not all) will be 
incorporated in v0.4 (later today or tomorrow).

Cheers!

-Matt