On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, David Rientjes wrote:

quoted text
> > The second paragraphs seems to indicate that such an approach does not 
> > work since we also use MPOL_xx constants to set flags in the memory 
> > policies?
> > 
> 
> Not sure I'm understanding your question, sorry.
> 
> Mempolicy modes have always been int constants because it doesn't make 
> sense to combine them.  Putting them into 'enum mempolicy_mode' leaves 
> that unchanged.

quoted text
> Mempolicy flags can be combined (even though my patchset only currently 
> implements one, it's easy to implement others).  So they definitely cannot 
> be enum constants.

quoted text
> Regardless, storing the policy (mode | flags) in struct mempolicy as a 
> 'short' doesn't help since a negative policy doesn't mean anything.  In 
> preparation for allowing the upper MPOL_FLAG_SHIFT bits to be used to 
> store the flags of this member, I converted it to 'unsigned short'.  This 
> is because the API with userspace is through 'int', which is implicitly 
> signed, and we don't want to sign-extend the upper bit if it's ever used 
> to hold a mempolicy flag.

Then you could follow through with the enum mempolicy thing 
throughtout. Why not use enum mempolicy in struct mempolicy?


--
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/