On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, David Mackey wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index f15c1b2..cb0b230 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -1602,8 +1602,14 @@ static unsigned interleave_nodes(struct mempolicy *policy)
> > * task can change it's policy. The system default policy requires no
> > * such protection.
> > */
> > -unsigned slab_node(struct mempolicy *policy)
> > +unsigned slab_node(void)
> > {
> > + struct mempolicy *policy;
> > +
> > + if (in_interrupt())
> > + return numa_node_id();
> > +
> > + policy = current->mempolicy;
> > if (!policy || policy->flags & MPOL_F_LOCAL)
> > return numa_node_id();
> >
>
> Should probably be numa_mem_id() in both these cases for
> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES, but it won't cause a problem in this form
> either.
>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
Still missing from linux-next, who's going to pick this up?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>