From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:45:43 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc3 1/8] mm: manual page migration-rc2 -- xfs-extended-attributes-rc2.patch Message-ID: <20050512104543.GA14799@infradead.org> References: <20050511043756.10876.72079.60115@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20050511043802.10876.60521.51027@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <20050511071538.GA23090@infradead.org> <4281F650.2020807@engr.sgi.com> <20050511125932.GW25612@wotan.suse.de> <42825236.1030503@engr.sgi.com> <20050511193207.GE11200@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050511193207.GE11200@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Ray Bryant , Christoph Hellwig , Ray Bryant , Hirokazu Takahashi , Marcelo Tosatti , Dave Hansen , linux-mm , Nathan Scott , Ray Bryant , lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Jes Sorensen List-ID: On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:32:07PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > A minor change for that is probably ok, as long as the actual logic > who uses this is generic. > > hch: if you still are against this please reread the original thread > with me and Ray and see why we decided that ld.so changes are not > a good idea. So reading through the thread I think using mempolicies to mark shared libraries is better than the mmap flag I proposed. I still don't think xattrs interpreted by the kernel is a good way to store them. Setting up libraries is the job of the dynamic linker, and reading pre-defined memory policies from an ELF header fits the approach we do for related things. -- 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: aart@kvack.org