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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:38 EST