From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/5] Mem Policy: cpuset-independent interleave policy From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: References: <20070830185053.22619.96398.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070830185122.22619.56636.sendpatchset@localhost> <46E86148.9060400@google.com> <1189690357.5013.19.camel@localhost> <470B1C77.1080001@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:02:29 -0400 Message-Id: <1191956550.5252.21.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Ethan Solomita , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ak@suse.de, mtk-manpages@gmx.net, eric.whitney@hp.com List-ID: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:49 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Ethan Solomita wrote: > > > Do we want do_get_mempolicy() to return a policy number with > > MPOL_CONTEXT set? That's what's happening with this patch, and I expect it'll > > confuse userland apps, e.g. numactl. > > Do we have a consistent way to deal with MPOL_CONTEXT now? I thought this > was just to test some ideas. Not sure your meaning, here, Christoph. Ethan did find a bug in my patch. That WAS an RFC, I believe. I plan on reissuing that patch along with the other cleanups after Mel's stuff goes in, as I'm currently testing my patches atop his. I have a couple of other independent, and more urgent fixes that I'll post as soon as I finish testing. 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: email@kvack.org