[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1193938691.5300.93.camel@localhost>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:38:11 -0400
From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, rientjes@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:26 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Christoph wrote:
> > The library interface can set flags to modify behavior.
>
> A library such as libnuma can set them, yes, but not everyone uses
> libnuma. Basically everyone uses the standard C library, glibc, which
> has the system call wrappers, but these wrappers should not be setting
> optional flags.
>
> We're going around in circles here, Christoph.
I think that the syscall man pages can document the behavior mode flag
for folks who want to use the "raw" interface. I think we already
recommend the use of libnuma APIs. [If not we can make it so, if folks
agree.]
So, we default to old behavior in the raw syscall APIs--we MUST, right?
"no breaky user APIs..."--and let new version of the library/ies enable
new behavior when appropriate. Even a "new syscall", such as the
set_mempolicy2(), et al that you suggested, could be just wrappers over
the existing ones with the behavior mod flag. Or vice versa.
Lee
-
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