linux-kernel - Re: [patch -mm 2/2] mempolicy: use default_policy mode instead of MPOL

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: <20080307192845.0492c6f9.pj@sgi.com>
Date:	Fri, 7 Mar 2008 19:28:45 -0600
From:	Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, clameter@....com,
	Lee.Schermerhorn@...com, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch -mm 2/2] mempolicy: use default_policy mode instead of
 MPOL_DEFAULT

David wrote:
> So instead of checking for comparisons against a mempolicy's mode to
> MPOL_DEFAULT or falling back stricly to MPOL_DEFAULT throughout the code,
> we should use the mode that is defined in this struct.

Is this just a stylistic choice?  That is, is the same machine
code produced either way?

If that's the case, could you briefly explain why you prefer
one style (default_policy.policy) over the other (MPOL_DEFAULT)?

-- 
                  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/