On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:
> In mempolicy.h, the lines:
>
> /*
> * The lower MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT bits of the policy mode represent the MPOL_*
> * constants defined in enum mempolicy_mode. The upper bits represent
> * optional set_mempolicy() MPOL_F_* mode flags.
> */
> #define MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT (8)
> #define MPOL_MODE_MASK ((1 << MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT) - 1)
>
> /* Flags for set_mempolicy */
> #define MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES (1 << MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT)
> #define MPOL_MODE_FLAGS (MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) /* legal set_mempolicy()
> MPOL_* mode flags */
>
> could be simplified, to:
>
> /*
> * Optional flags that modify nodemask numbering.
> */
> #define MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES (1<<14) /* remapped relative to cpuset
> */
> #define MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES (1<<15) /* unremapped physical
> masks */
> #define MPOL_MODE_FLAGS (MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES|MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES)
> /* combined MPOL_F_* mask flags
> */
>
> (really, that MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT is just unnecessary distracting detail.)
>
It would be easy to define mpol_mode() and mpol_flags() in terms of
MPOL_MODE_FLAGS as well, yes. But without MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT it becomes
impossible to determine whether a user passed an invalid flag.
I think we're all in agreement that passing an invalid flag bit should be
rejected with -EINVAL. So to do that we need MPOL_MODE_MASK to expicitly
define the parts of the int *policy passed from set_mempolicy() that
represent the mode.
David
--
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/
