On Mon 10-10-22 09:22:13, Frank van der Linden wrote: > For consistency with process_madvise(), I would suggest calling it > process_set_mempolicy. This operation has per-thread rather than per-process semantic so I do not think your proposed naming is better. > Other than that, this makes sense. To complete > the set, perhaps a process_mbind() should be added as well. What do > you think? Is there any real usecase for this interface? How is the caller supposed to make per-range decisions without a very involved coordination with the target process? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
