On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:

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

Mempolicy flags, as I implemented them in patch 2 in this series, are not 
integer constants that are enumerated starting at 0.  They are individual 
bits that are shifted a pre-defined length and intersected with the 
enumerated mode.  This allows both the mode and the flags to be stored in 
the same object.

Just because enum mempolicy_mode is the equivalent of passing an int in C 
is irrelevant; its semantics are that the value is coming from enum 
mempolicy_mode.  That includes _only_ the mode itself:

	enum mempolicy_mode {
		MPOL_DEFAULT,
		MPOL_BIND,
		MPOL_PREFERRED,
		MPOL_INTERLEAVE,
		MPOL_MAX,
	};

And changing the policy member of struct mempolicy to 'enum 
mempolicy_mode' instead of 'unsigned short' would increase its size.  Not 
that it matters, since in the third patch I add a whole nodemask_t, but 
it's simply unnecessary.  Right now we have the capacity to store 256 
individual mempolicy modes (we currently use four) and eight mempolicy 
flags with unsigned short.

		David
--
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/