From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761405AbYCGV5w (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:57:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753262AbYCGV5p (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:57:45 -0500 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.171.29]:45903 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753925AbYCGV5o (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Mar 2008 16:57:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:57:42 -0600 From: Paul Jackson To: David Rientjes Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, clameter@sgi.com, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, eric.whitney@hp.com Subject: Re: Regression: Re: [patch -mm 2/4] mempolicy: create mempolicy_operations structure Message-Id: <20080307155742.d7b54da6.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1204922646.5340.73.camel@localhost> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David wrote: > If you want to remove this requirement now (please get agreement from Paul) I'm ducking and running for cover ;). Personally, I'm slightly in favor of not requiring the empty mask, as I always that that empty mask check was a couple lines of non- essential logic. However I'm slightly in favor of not changing this detail from what it has been for years, which would mean we still checked for the empty mask. And no doubt, if someone cares to examine the record closely enough they will find where I took a third position as well. But I can't see where it actually matters enough to write home about. So I'll quit writing, and agree to most anything. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214