Hi, Christoph. On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 11:07 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > I don't want to remove alloc_pages for UMA system. > > alloc_pages is the same as alloc_pages_any_node so why have it? I don't want to force using '_node' postfix on UMA users. Maybe they don't care getting page from any node and event don't need to know about _NODE_. > > > #define alloc_pages alloc_page_sexact_node > > > > What I want to remove is just alloc_pages_node. :) > > Why remove it? If you want to get rid of -1 handling then check all the alloc_pages_node have multiple meaning as you said. So some of users misuses that API. I want to clear intention of user. > callsites and make sure that they are not using -1. Sure. I must do it before any progressing. > > Also could you define a constant for -1? -1 may have various meanings. One > is the local node and the other is any node. The difference is if memory > policies are obeyed or not. Note that alloc_pages follows memory policies > whereas alloc_pages_node does not. > > Therefore > > alloc_pages() != alloc_pages_node( , -1) > Yes, now it's totally different. On UMA, It's any node but on NUMA, local node. My concern is following as. alloc_pages_node means any node but it has nid argument. Why should user of alloc_pages who want to get page from any node pass nid argument? It's rather awkward. Some of user misunderstood it and used alloc_pages_node instead of alloc_pages_exact_node although he already know exact _NID_. Of course, it's not a BUG since if nid >= 0 it works well. But I want to remove such multiple meaning to clear intention of user. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>