lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.9999.0710261413420.11594@chino.kir.corp.google.com> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:15:53 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> cc: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>, Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > We would need two fields in the policy structure > > 1. The specified nodemask (generally ignored) > What I've called pol->passed_nodemask. > 2. The effective nodemask (specified & cpuset_mems_allowed) > Which is pol->v.nodes. > If we have these two then its easy to get a bit further by making > the first nodemask a relative nodemask. The calculation of the effective > nodemask changes somewhat but the logic is then applicable to MPOL_BIND as > well. > Agreed. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists