From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:12:34 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use node macros for memory policies Message-Id: <20050924131234.427e40ef.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20050923145746.77a846b7.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: akpm@osdl.org, ak@suse.de, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Andrew inquired: > Which typedef weenie inflicted nodemask_t upon us anyway? I believe it was Matthew Dobson and myself, with forced labor contributions from several others, as part of a larger effort to overhaul bitmaps and cpumasks. Christoph wrote: > One hunk is missing in Andi's patchset. This covers the cpuset->mempolicy > interface. If you had taken a look at the lkml thread where Andi submitted his patch to convert mempolicy to nodemask, and I reviewed it, we agreed to send in the remaining couple of pieces after Andi's patch had worked its way through the system, to avoid wasting the couple of minutes of Andrews time that it would take him to deal with possible merge conflicts. I don't see where your patch deals with the following two lines, at the point in mm/mempolicy.c where cpuset_restrict_to_mems_allowed is called (the latest *-mm version with Andi's patch nodemask mempolicy patch): /* AK: shouldn't this error out instead? */ cpuset_restrict_to_mems_allowed(nodes_addr(*nodes)); I agreed with Andi that this should error out, and I accepted his suggestion that I fix this, later on. Surely it is not a good idea to change the type of parameter a function accepts, without changing the places that call that function. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- 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