> > Are you saying: > > 1) The kernel continues to default to Choice A, unless > > the flag enables Choice B, or > > 2) The kernel defaults to the new Choice B, unless the > > flag reverts to the old Choice A? > > If 2) is keeping the API semantics then 2. No .. (1) keeps the same API semantics. > Let everything be as it is today unless > numactl sets the new. > ... > Tough. The API needs to remain stable. Good - that I understand. Your position is clear now. You have chosen (1) above, which keeps Choice A as the default. Before I leave this part, there is one more thing I kinda really need, if you could, Christoph. Could you describe in your own words what you think Choices A and B mean? We seem to be having trouble communicating, and hence there is some risk right now that we don't mean the same thing by this new "Choice B". === Now ... onto the matter of permanent API warts: > > I wonder if there might be some way to avoid that permanent ugly wart > > on each and every set/get mempolicy system call forever afterward. > > Hmmm.. The alternative is to add new set/get mempolicy functions. Other alternatives include a per-system, per-cpuset or per-process flag, in addition to the per-system call flag you suggested earlier (MPOL_MF_RELATIVE), or whatever you mean by "new set/get mempolicy functions" ... could you elaborate on that one? So ... the question becomes this: How do we migrate to Choice B, without leaving both Choices permanently supported, and an ugly mode flag selecting the non-default Choice, while not breaking API's too abruptly? Thanks. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <[email protected]> 1.925.600.0401 - 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: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- References:
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Lee Schermerhorn <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: David Rientjes <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Paul Jackson <[email protected]>
- Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- [patch 1/2] cpusets: extract mmarray loading from update_nodemask
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 106/327] ufs: Fix mount check in ufs_fill_super()
- Next by Date: Re: per BDI dirty limit (was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.24)
- Previous by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- Next by thread: Re: [patch 2/2] cpusets: add interleave_over_allowed option
- Index(es):