On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 19:41:40 PST (-0800), hu...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:31:40 PST (-0800), hu...@google.com wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:17:20 -0800 Palmer Dabbelt
> > wrote:
> > >
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:31:40 PST (-0800), hu...@google.com wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:17:20 -0800 Palmer Dabbelt
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: Palmer Dabbelt
> > > >
> > > > This is only useful under
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 17:31:40 PST (-0800), hu...@google.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:17:20 -0800 Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: Palmer Dabbelt
>
> This is only useful under CONFIG_NUMA. IIUC skipping the check is the
> right thing to do here, as
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:17:20 -0800 Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > From: Palmer Dabbelt
> >
> > This is only useful under CONFIG_NUMA. IIUC skipping the check is the
> > right thing to do here, as without CONFIG_NUMA there will never be any
> > large node
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 12:17:20 -0800 Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> From: Palmer Dabbelt
>
> This is only useful under CONFIG_NUMA. IIUC skipping the check is the
> right thing to do here, as without CONFIG_NUMA there will never be any
> large node distances on non-NUMA systems.
>
> I expected this
From: Palmer Dabbelt
This is only useful under CONFIG_NUMA. IIUC skipping the check is the
right thing to do here, as without CONFIG_NUMA there will never be any
large node distances on non-NUMA systems.
I expected this to manifest as a link failure under (!CONFIG_NUMA &&
6 matches
Mail list logo