On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:48:09AM +, Sandoval Castro, Luis Felipe wrote:
> On Tue 18-10-17 10:42:34, Luis Felipe Sandoval Castro wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delayed replay, from your feedback I don't think my
> patch has any chances of being merged... I'm wondering though,
> if a note in the
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 03:48:09AM +, Sandoval Castro, Luis Felipe wrote:
> On Tue 18-10-17 10:42:34, Luis Felipe Sandoval Castro wrote:
>
> Sorry for the delayed replay, from your feedback I don't think my
> patch has any chances of being merged... I'm wondering though,
> if a note in the
On Tue 18-10-17 10:42:34, Luis Felipe Sandoval Castro wrote:
Sorry for the delayed replay, from your feedback I don't think my
patch has any chances of being merged... I'm wondering though,
if a note in the man pages "range non inclusive" or something
like that would help to avoid confusions?
On Tue 18-10-17 10:42:34, Luis Felipe Sandoval Castro wrote:
Sorry for the delayed replay, from your feedback I don't think my
patch has any chances of being merged... I'm wondering though,
if a note in the man pages "range non inclusive" or something
like that would help to avoid confusions?
On Thu 12-10-17 08:28:25, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:46:33AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
>
> Actually you can blame me. I did the mistake originally.
> It was found many years ago, but then it was already too late
> to
On Thu 12-10-17 08:28:25, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:46:33AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
>
> Actually you can blame me. I did the mistake originally.
> It was found many years ago, but then it was already too late
> to
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:46:33AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
Actually you can blame me. I did the mistake originally.
It was found many years ago, but then it was already too late
to change.
> Andi has voiced a concern about backward
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:46:33AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
Actually you can blame me. I did the mistake originally.
It was found many years ago, but then it was already too late
to change.
> Andi has voiced a concern about backward
On Thu 12-10-17 11:14:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 10:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
> >
> > I would also note that a single patch rarely requires a separate cover
> > letter. If there is an information which is not suitable for
On Thu 12-10-17 11:14:02, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/12/2017 10:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
> >
> > I would also note that a single patch rarely requires a separate cover
> > letter. If there is an information which is not suitable for
On 10/12/2017 10:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
>
> I would also note that a single patch rarely requires a separate cover
> letter. If there is an information which is not suitable for the
> changelog then you can place it in the diffstate
On 10/12/2017 10:46 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
>
> I would also note that a single patch rarely requires a separate cover
> letter. If there is an information which is not suitable for the
> changelog then you can place it in the diffstate
[CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
I would also note that a single patch rarely requires a separate cover
letter. If there is an information which is not suitable for the
changelog then you can place it in the diffstate area.
On Fri 06-10-17 08:36:34, Luis Felipe Sandoval
[CC Christoph who seems to be the author of the code]
I would also note that a single patch rarely requires a separate cover
letter. If there is an information which is not suitable for the
changelog then you can place it in the diffstate area.
On Fri 06-10-17 08:36:34, Luis Felipe Sandoval
set_mempolicy() and mbind() take as argument a pointer to a bit mask
(nodemask) and the number of bits in the mask the kernel will use
(maxnode), among others. For instace on a system with 2 NUMA nodes valid
masks are: 0b00, 0b01, 0b10 and 0b11 it's clear maxnode=2, however an
off-by-one error in
set_mempolicy() and mbind() take as argument a pointer to a bit mask
(nodemask) and the number of bits in the mask the kernel will use
(maxnode), among others. For instace on a system with 2 NUMA nodes valid
masks are: 0b00, 0b01, 0b10 and 0b11 it's clear maxnode=2, however an
off-by-one error in
set_mempolicy() and mbind() take as argument a pointer to a bit mask
(nodemask) and the number of bits in the mask the kernel will use
(maxnode), among others. For instace on a system with 2 NUMA nodes valid
masks are: 0b00, 0b01, 0b10 and 0b11 it's clear maxnode=2, however an
off-by-one error in
set_mempolicy() and mbind() take as argument a pointer to a bit mask
(nodemask) and the number of bits in the mask the kernel will use
(maxnode), among others. For instace on a system with 2 NUMA nodes valid
masks are: 0b00, 0b01, 0b10 and 0b11 it's clear maxnode=2, however an
off-by-one error in
18 matches
Mail list logo
