> > Are you saying:No .. (1) keeps the same API semantics. Good - that I understand. Your position is clear now. You have chosen (1) above, which keeps Choice A as the default. Before I leave this part, there is one more thing I kinda really need, if you could, Christoph. Could you describe in your own words what you think Choices A and B mean? We seem to be having trouble communicating, and hence there is some risk right now that we don't mean the same thing by this new "Choice B". === Now ... onto the matter of permanent API warts: Other alternatives include a per-system, per-cpuset or per-process flag, in addition to the per-system call flag you suggested earlier (MPOL_MF_RELATIVE), or whatever you mean by "new set/get mempolicy functions" ... could you elaborate on that one? So ... the question becomes this: How do we migrate to Choice B, without leaving both Choices permanently supported, and an ugly mode flag selecting the non-default Choice, while not breaking API's too abruptly? Thanks. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401 -
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Gabriel C | Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS] |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 03/37] dccp: List management for new feature negotiation |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Thomas Jarosch | Re: TCP connection stalls under 2.6.24.7 |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
