From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:27:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] Swap migration V3: sys_migrate_pages interface In-Reply-To: <435896CA.1000101@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20051020225935.19761.57434.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20051020225955.19761.53060.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <4358588D.1080307@jp.fujitsu.com> <435896CA.1000101@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: Simon Derr , Andrew Morton , Mike Kravetz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Magnus Damm , Marcelo Tosatti , Paul Jackson List-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > How about this ? > > > +cpuset_update_task_mems_allowed(task, new); (this isn't implemented > > > now > > *new* is already guaranteed to be the subset of current mem_allowed. > Is this violate the permission ? Could the cpuset_mems_allowed(task) function update the mems_allowed if needed? -- 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