On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, David Rientjes wrote: > Well, passing a single node to set_mempolicy() for MPOL_INTERLEAVE doesn't > make a whole lot of sense in the first place. I prefer your solution of > allowing set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAVE, NODE_MASK_ALL) to mean "interleave > me over everything I'm allowed to access." NODE_MASK_ALL would be stored > in the struct mempolicy and used later on mpol_rebind_policy().
So instead of an empty nodemask we would pass a nodemask where all bits are set? And they would stay set but the cpuset restrictions would effectively limit the interleaving to the allowed set? rebind could ignore rebinds if all bits are set. - 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/
