Re: [patch 3/4] mempolicy: add MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES flag

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Paul Jackson wrote:

> So that last line should be:
> 
> > 	1,3,5			4-10		5,7,9
> 

What about this case where one of the relative nodes wraps around to 
represent an already set node in the result?

	relative	mems_allowed	result
	1,3,6		4-8		5,7 or 5-7 ?

Neither result is immediately obvious to me logically: either your result 
has less weight than your relative nodemask (seems like a bad thing) or 
your relative nodemask really isn't all that relative to begin with (it's 
the same result as 1-3, 6-8, 11-13, etc).

Or is this just a less-than-desired side-effect of relative nodemasks that 
we're willing to live with given its other advantages?

		David
--
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/