Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762567AbYBOUPA (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:15:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756329AbYBOUOw (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:14:52 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.45.13]:3097 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756132AbYBOUOu (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:14:50 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:date:from:x-x-sender:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to: message-id:references:user-agent:mime-version:content-type; b=U+5UVHiH3bTuhPmm5zaylh74HA7a8kSJblzGlRgprW4SfU4rZ8ymM7XK+g9JJ7LMy 6izCUi4zAMc2IhIJeNSUg== Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:14:17 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Paul Jackson cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, clameter@sgi.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mel@csn.ul.ie Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag In-Reply-To: <20080215041957.afe41262.pj@sgi.com> Message-ID: References: <1202862136.4974.41.camel@localhost> <20080212215242.0342fa25.pj@sgi.com> <20080212221354.a33799f2.pj@sgi.com> <20080213020344.45c9d924.pj@sgi.com> <20080213110426.15179378.pj@sgi.com> <20080213142956.5ba52101.pj@sgi.com> <20080214042643.dff40c72.pj@sgi.com> <20080215041957.afe41262.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (DEB 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 929 Lines: 27 On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote: > So that last line should be: > > > 1,3,5 4-10 5,7,9 > What about this case where one of the relative nodes wraps around to represent an already set node in the result? relative mems_allowed result 1,3,6 4-8 5,7 or 5-7 ? Neither result is immediately obvious to me logically: either your result has less weight than your relative nodemask (seems like a bad thing) or your relative nodemask really isn't all that relative to begin with (it's the same result as 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, etc). Or is this just a less-than-desired side-effect of relative nodemasks that we're willing to live with given its other advantages? David -- 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/