Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Paul Jackson wrote:

> > > Forcing coders to specify the same detail in multiple places, when
> > > there is no way to validate their consistency, doesn't force them
> > > to think or do it right.  It increases the error rate due to
> > 
> > There are always wrappers for system calls. The flags will be set in 
> > these.
> 
> We were discussing libnuma here, not glibc.  The system call wrappers
> are in glibc.  System call wrappers should not be setting optional
> flags.  They should just make the system call -- do whatever magic it
> takes to get the provided arguments into the right registers or other
> conventionally determined places, and invoke the necessary machine
> instruction to trap into the kernel.

The library interface can set flags to modify behavior.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
    • From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] x86: show cpuinfo only for online CPUs
• Next by Date: Re: [Devel] Re: [PATCH resend] proc: Fix proc_kill_inodes to kill dentries on all proc superblocks
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]