Re: [Lse-tech] Re: Hugetlbpages in very large memorymachines.......
From: Andy Whitcroft
Date: Thu Mar 18 2004 - 17:26:41 EST
--On 18 March 2004 16:22 -0500 Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 15:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
Seems reasonable, although "vm_enough_acctdom" makes my eyes pop. Why
not keep the "vm_enough_memory" identifier?
I've asked Stephen for comment - assuming he's OK with it I'd ask you to
finish this off please.
I have no emotional attachment to any of the names. If we can come up with
a more sensible name then all for the best. I was trying to find something
which implied the 'measurement' thing which didn't overlap with any of the
other memory grouping concepts. As the domains overlap nodes and zones.
To keep the name, he needs to update all callers, right? Current patch
appears to add a static inline for security_vm_enough_memory that
retains the old interface to avoid having to update most callers.
Yes this is the main reason for the name change. This is at the dirty hack
stage in that sense, minimal changes to prove the concept. I think that we
should be changing all the callers if this is going mainline in the longer
term. Although then the do cross 4 architecture and with it being in the
security interface it also interfaces with selinux as well (sigh).
I'll put together a more complete change over of the interface, keep the
name the same and see how intrusive that seems. Then we'll get some
testing on it.
I don't have any fundamental problem with the nature of the change. As
a side note, patch was malformed (at least as I received it), not sure
if that was just a problem on my end.
Steven, I'll send you a copy of the patch under separate cover.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/