[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080227110912.75d82710.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:09:12 -0600
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Cc: rientjes@...gle.com, clameter@....com, ak@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mtk-manpages@....net
Subject: Re: [patch 5/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES flag
Lee wrote:
> 1) this IS a change in behavior, right? My first inclination is to shy
> away from this. However, ...
>
> 2) the current interaction of mempolicies with cpusets is not well
> documented--until Paul's cpuset.4 man page hits the streets, anyway.
> That doc does say that mempolicy is not allowed to use a node outside
> the cpuset. It does NOT say how this is enforced--reject vs masking vs
We should strive to minimize change in existing behaviour, especially
on points where either way could be arguably a reasonable choice in
some situations, and neither way is a clearly inescapable bug in other
situations.
One almost always breaks someone, somewhere with such changes. You
need a compelling reason to do that, not just a "on this hand, on that
hand" design choice.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists