Re: [patch 5/6] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES flag

[Paul Jackson]

Lee wrote:
> 1) this IS a change in behavior, right?  My first inclination is to shy
> away from this.  However, ...
> 
> 2) the current interaction of mempolicies with cpusets is not well
> documented--until Paul's cpuset.4 man page hits the streets, anyway.
> That doc does say that mempolicy is not allowed to use a node outside
> the cpuset.  It does NOT say how this is enforced--reject vs masking vs

We should strive to minimize change in existing behaviour, especially
on points where either way could be arguably a reasonable choice in
some situations, and neither way is a clearly inescapable bug in other
situations.

One almost always breaks someone, somewhere with such changes.  You
need a compelling reason to do that, not just a "on this hand, on that
hand" design choice.

-- 
                  I won't rest till it's the best ...
                  Programmer, Linux Scalability
                  Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/