David,
Perhaps I missed it, but could you elaborate on what sort of testing
these patches for MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES and MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES have
received?
The main reason I didn't push my version of these patches in December
was I figured it would take a week or three of obsessive-compulsive
test
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> David wrote:
> +static nodemask_t mpol_relative_nodemask(const nodemask_t *orig,
> + const nodemask_t *rel)
> +{
> + nodemask_t ret;
> + nodemask_t tmp;
>
> Could you avoid needing the nodemask_t 'ret' on the
David wrote:
+static nodemask_t mpol_relative_nodemask(const nodemask_t *orig,
+const nodemask_t *rel)
+{
+ nodemask_t ret;
+ nodemask_t tmp;
Could you avoid needing the nodemask_t 'ret' on the stack, by passing
in a "nodemask_t *" pointer to whe
Adds another optional mode flag, MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES, that specifies
nodemasks passed via set_mempolicy() or mbind() should be considered
relative to the current task's mems_allowed.
When the mempolicy is created, the passed nodemask is folded and mapped
onto the current task's mems_allowed. Fo
4 matches
Mail list logo
