linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080215041957.afe41262.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:19:57 -0600
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	clameter@....com, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mel@....ul.ie
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag

> So basically the "relative" nodemask that is passed with 
> MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES is wrapped around the allowed nodes?
> 
> 	relative nodemask	mems_allowed	result
> 	1,3,5			4		4
> 	1,3,5			4-6		4-6
> 	1,3,5			4-8		4-5,7
> 	1,3,5			4-10		4,6,8
> 
> Is that correct?

By my calculation, all but the last line is correct.

We use zero-based numbering, so relative node '1' is the
'second' node, and the 'second' node in allowed nodes 4-10
is node 5, not 4.  Similarly for relative nodes '3' and '5'.

So that last line should be:

> 	1,3,5			4-10		5,7,9


-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/