| 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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710271044410.524@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:47:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com> cc: rientjes@...gle.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 Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Paul Jackson wrote: > > Tough. The API needs to remain stable. > > Good - that I understand. Your position is clear now. > > You have chosen (1) above, which keeps Choice A as the default. There can be different defaults for the user space API via libnuma that are indepdent from the kernel API which needs to remain stable. The kernel API can be extended but not changed. > > Hmmm.. The alternative is to add new set/get mempolicy functions. > > Other alternatives include a per-system, per-cpuset or per-process > flag, in addition to the per-system call flag you suggested earlier > (MPOL_MF_RELATIVE), or whatever you mean by "new set/get mempolicy > functions" ... could you elaborate on that one? None of those sound appealing. Multiple processes may run in one cpuset. Some of those may be linked to older libnumas and therefore depend on old behavior. - 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