Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:09:06 -0700 | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Subject | Re: [rfc][patch] Memory Binding API v0.3 2.5.41 |
| |
William Lee Irwin III wrote: > At some point in the past, Matthew Dobson wrote: > >>>>+asmlinkage long sys_mem_setbinding(pid_t pid, unsigned long memblks, >>>>+ unsigned int behavior) >>> > > On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 11:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >>>Do you really think exposing low level internals as memory layout / zone >>>split up to userspace is a good idea ? (and worth it given that the VM >>>already has a cpu locality preference?) >> > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:22:51PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > >>At least in the embedded world that level is a good idea. I'm not sure >>about the syscall interface. An "unsigned long" mask of blocks sounds >>like a good way to ensure a broken syscall in the future > Seconded wrt. memblk bitmask interface. Glad to have your support! :)
> Also, I've already privately replied with some of my stylistic concerns, > including things like the separability of the for_each_in_zonelist() > cleanup bundled into the patch and a typedef or so. Some very good points in your email. Most (if not all) will be incorporated in v0.4 (later today or tomorrow).
Cheers!
-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/
| |