On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:05:01 -0700 Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christoph wrote: > > This is an implementation that deals with monitoring and managing running > > processes. > > So is this patch roughly equivalent to adding a pid to the > mbind/set_mempolicy/get_mempolicy system calls? > > Not that I am advocating for or against adding doing that. But this > seems like alot of code, with new and exciting API details, just to > add a pid argument, if such it be. > > Andi - could you remind us all why you chose not to have a pid argument > in these calls? Because of locking issues and I don't think external processes should mess with virtual addresses of other processes. There is just no way to do the later cleanly and race free. I haven't seen the patch, but from the description it sounds wrong. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
