Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] cpuset relative memory policies - second choice | From | Lee Schermerhorn <> | Date | Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:38:11 -0400 |
| |
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:26 -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > Christoph wrote: > > The library interface can set flags to modify behavior. > > A library such as libnuma can set them, yes, but not everyone uses > libnuma. Basically everyone uses the standard C library, glibc, which > has the system call wrappers, but these wrappers should not be setting > optional flags. > > We're going around in circles here, Christoph.
I think that the syscall man pages can document the behavior mode flag for folks who want to use the "raw" interface. I think we already recommend the use of libnuma APIs. [If not we can make it so, if folks agree.]
So, we default to old behavior in the raw syscall APIs--we MUST, right? "no breaky user APIs..."--and let new version of the library/ies enable new behavior when appropriate. Even a "new syscall", such as the set_mempolicy2(), et al that you suggested, could be just wrappers over the existing ones with the behavior mod flag. Or vice versa.
Lee
- 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/
| |