lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: NUMA API for Linux
From
Date
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 14:27, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:24:19 -0700
> Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > I must be missing something here, but did you not include mempolicy.h
> > and policy.c in these patches? I can't seem to find them anywhere?!?
> > It's really hard to evaluate your patches if the core of them is
> > missing!
>
> It was in the core patch and also in the last patch I sent Andrew.
> See ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/ak/numa/* for the full patches

Ok.. I'll check that link, but what you posted didn't have the files
(mempolicy.h & policy.c) in the patch:

[mcd@arrakis numa_api]$ diffstat numa_api-01-core.patch
include/linux/gfp.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
include/linux/mm.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++++
kernel/sys.c | 3 +++
mm/Makefile | 1 +
5 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Maybe it got lost somewhere between your mailer and mine? The patch you
posted to LKML yesterday was clearly done without the -N option to diff:

diff -u linux-2.6.5-numa/kernel/sys.c-o linux-2.6.5-numa/kernel/sys.c

> >
> > Andrew already mentioned your mistake on the i386 syscalls which needs
> > to be fixed.
>
> That's already fixed

Good.


> > Also, this snippet of code is in 2 of your patches (#1 and #6) causing
> > rejects:
> >
> > @@ -435,6 +445,8 @@
> >
> > struct page *shmem_nopage(struct vm_area_struct * vma,
> > unsigned long address, int *type);
> > +int shmem_set_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mempolicy
> > *new);
> > +struct mempolicy *shmem_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned
> > long addr);
> > struct file *shmem_file_setup(char * name, loff_t size, unsigned long
> > flags);
> > void shmem_lock(struct file * file, int lock);
> > int shmem_zero_setup(struct vm_area_struct *);
>
>
> It didn't reject for me.

I don't know why. The same code addition is in both the 'core' patch
and the 'shm' patch. Adding it twice causes patch throw a reject.


> > Just from the patches you posted, I would really disagree that these are
> > ready for merging into -mm.
>
> Why so?
>
> -Andi


Well, if for no other reason than all the code isn't posted!

-Matt

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans