On 11/09/2016 02:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the future we can pass it
On 11/09/2016 02:15 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the future we can pass it
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the future we can pass it through struct
irq_affinity.
Signed-off-by: Christoph
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the future we can pass it through struct
irq_affinity.
Signed-off-by: Christoph
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:47:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> From: Christogh Hellwig
>
> Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
> pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
>
> Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has
On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:47:38AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> From: Christogh Hellwig
>
> Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
> pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
>
> Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:59:16PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > >
> > > Which you don't in this patch:
> >
> > True. We will always in the end, but the split isn't right,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:27:52PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:59:16PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > >
> > > Which you don't in this patch:
> >
> > True. We will always in the end, but the split isn't right,
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:59:16PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >
> > Which you don't in this patch:
>
> True. We will always in the end, but the split isn't right, we'll
> need to pass the non-NULL argument starting in this patch.
No, in the
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:59:16PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >
> > Which you don't in this patch:
>
> True. We will always in the end, but the split isn't right, we'll
> need to pass the non-NULL argument starting in this patch.
No, in the
On 11/08/2016 03:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[please trim the f***king context in your replies, thanks..]
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:15:27AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
+irq_create_affinity_masks(int nvecs, const struct irq_affinity *affd)
{
- int n, nodes, vecs_per_node,
On 11/08/2016 03:55 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
[please trim the f***king context in your replies, thanks..]
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:15:27AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
+irq_create_affinity_masks(int nvecs, const struct irq_affinity *affd)
{
- int n, nodes, vecs_per_node,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:59:16PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>
> Which you don't in this patch:
True. We will always in the end, but the split isn't right, we'll
need to pass the non-NULL argument starting in this patch.
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:59:16PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>
> Which you don't in this patch:
True. We will always in the end, but the split isn't right, we'll
need to pass the non-NULL argument starting in this patch.
[please trim the f***king context in your replies, thanks..]
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:15:27AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> +irq_create_affinity_masks(int nvecs, const struct irq_affinity *affd)
>> {
>> -int n, nodes, vecs_per_node, cpus_per_vec, extra_vecs, curvec = 0;
>> +int n,
[please trim the f***king context in your replies, thanks..]
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 09:15:27AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> +irq_create_affinity_masks(int nvecs, const struct irq_affinity *affd)
>> {
>> -int n, nodes, vecs_per_node, cpus_per_vec, extra_vecs, curvec = 0;
>> +int n,
On 11/07/2016 07:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
From: Christogh Hellwig
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever
On 11/07/2016 07:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
From: Christogh Hellwig
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the
From: Christogh Hellwig
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the future we can pass it through struct
From: Christogh Hellwig
Only calculate the affinity for the main I/O vectors, and skip the
pre or post vectors specified by struct irq_affinity.
Also remove the irq_affinity cpumask argument that has never been used.
If we ever need it in the future we can pass it through struct
irq_affinity.
20 matches
Mail list logo