From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 10:41:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux Memory Policy In-Reply-To: <1180541849.5850.30.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1180467234.5067.52.camel@localhost> <200705292216.31102.ak@suse.de> <1180541849.5850.30.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: Andi Kleen , mtk-manpages@gmx.net, linux-mm , Andrew Morton List-ID: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > Also the big difference to MPOL_BIND is that it is not strict and will fall > > back like the default policy. > > Right. And since the API argument is a node mask, one might want to > know what happens if more than one node is specified. On the other > hand, we could play hardball and reject the call if more than one is > specified. I think we would like to reject the call if more than one node is specified. -- 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