From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:17:03 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.24-mm1] Mempolicy: silently restrict nodemask to allowed nodes V3 In-Reply-To: <20080212115952.29B2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: References: <20080212103944.29A9.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080212115952.29B2.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , Andrew Morton , linux-mm List-ID: On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > 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. > Yes, it's not a regression, but I'm asking why we can't allow this: nodemask_t nodes = NODE_MASK_NONE; node_set(1, &nodes); set_mempolicy(MPOL_DEFAULT, &nodes, MAX_NUMNODES); It seems like that should not return -EINVAL and that it should just effect the system default of a MPOL_DEFAULT policy. It's not a problem that I'm complaining about specifically in this patch, I'm just raising the concern that returning -EINVAL here is really unnecessary since mpol_new() will readily accept it. So you can add my Acked-by: David Rientjes to this patch, but I would like some counter-arguments presented that show why we shouldn't allow the above code to work later on. David -- 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