Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: NUMA API for Linux | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Date | Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:41:02 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 14:27, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:24:19 -0700 > Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > I must be missing something here, but did you not include mempolicy.h > > and policy.c in these patches? I can't seem to find them anywhere?!? > > It's really hard to evaluate your patches if the core of them is > > missing! > > It was in the core patch and also in the last patch I sent Andrew. > See ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/people/ak/numa/* for the full patches
Ok.. I'll check that link, but what you posted didn't have the files (mempolicy.h & policy.c) in the patch:
[mcd@arrakis numa_api]$ diffstat numa_api-01-core.patch include/linux/gfp.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/mm.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++ include/linux/sched.h | 4 ++++ kernel/sys.c | 3 +++ mm/Makefile | 1 + 5 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Maybe it got lost somewhere between your mailer and mine? The patch you posted to LKML yesterday was clearly done without the -N option to diff:
diff -u linux-2.6.5-numa/kernel/sys.c-o linux-2.6.5-numa/kernel/sys.c
> > > > Andrew already mentioned your mistake on the i386 syscalls which needs > > to be fixed. > > That's already fixed
Good.
> > Also, this snippet of code is in 2 of your patches (#1 and #6) causing > > rejects: > > > > @@ -435,6 +445,8 @@ > > > > struct page *shmem_nopage(struct vm_area_struct * vma, > > unsigned long address, int *type); > > +int shmem_set_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mempolicy > > *new); > > +struct mempolicy *shmem_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned > > long addr); > > struct file *shmem_file_setup(char * name, loff_t size, unsigned long > > flags); > > void shmem_lock(struct file * file, int lock); > > int shmem_zero_setup(struct vm_area_struct *); > > > It didn't reject for me.
I don't know why. The same code addition is in both the 'core' patch and the 'shm' patch. Adding it twice causes patch throw a reject.
> > Just from the patches you posted, I would really disagree that these are > > ready for merging into -mm. > > Why so? > > -Andi
Well, if for no other reason than all the code isn't posted!
-Matt - 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/
| |