On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 11:46 -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> 
> > Actually, my patch doesn't change the set_mempolicy() API at all, it
> > just co-opts a currently unused/illegal value for the nodemask to
> > indicate "all allowed nodes".  Again, I need to provide a libnuma API to
> > request this.   Soon come, mon...
> > 
> 
> If something that was previously unaccepted is now allowed with a 
> newly-introduced semantic, that's an API change.

Well, it's an extension for sure, but a backward compatible one.  It
should not affect any correct existing application--i.e., one that
checks it's return status--except maybe the odd test program that needs
to be updated to handle the new semantics.  We're allowed to extend APIs
as long as we don't break correct applications, right?

I mean, it's not like it's a new argument or such.

Lee


-
unsubscribe notice
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/