From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:05:17 +0900 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-mm1] Mempolicy: silently restrict nodemask to allowed nodes V3 In-Reply-To: References: <20080212103944.29A9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-Id: <20080212115952.29B2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: David Rientjes Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Lee Schermerhorn , Andrew Morton , linux-mm List-ID: Hi > I'm talking about the disclaimer that I quoted above in the changelog of > this patch. Lee was stating that he deferred my suggestion to move the > logic into mpol_new(), which I did in my patchset, but I don't think that > needs to be included in this patch's changelog. > > I'm all for the merging of this patch (once my concern below is addressed) > but the section of the changelog that is quoted above is unnecessary. OK. I obey you. > So my question is why we consider this invalid: > > nodemask_t nodes; > > nodes_clear(&nodes); > node_set(1, &nodes); > set_mempolicy(MPOL_DEFAULT, nodes, 1 << CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT); > > The nodemask doesn't matter at all with a MPOL_DEFAULT policy. Hmmmmmm sorry, I don't understand yet. My test result was RHEL5(initrd-2.6.18 + rhel patch) EINVAL 2.6.24 EINVAL 2.6.24 + lee-patch EINVAL I don't know current behavior good or wrong. but I think it is not regression. ------------------------------------------------------- #include #include #include #include #include main(){ int err; nodemask_t nodes; nodemask_zero(&nodes); nodemask_set(&nodes, 1); err = set_mempolicy(MPOL_DEFAULT, &nodes.n[0], 2048); if (err < 0) { perror("set_mempolicy"); } return 0; } - kosaki -- 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