Fillod Stephane wrote:
> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>> Fillod Stephane wrote:
>>> Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe.
>>> Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed?
>>>
>> Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase
>> indefinitely... Is it
Philippe Gerum wrote:
>Fillod Stephane wrote:
>> Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe.
>> Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed?
>>
>
>Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase
>indefinitely... Is it the PF count we are talking abo
Fillod Stephane wrote:
> Dear Xeonmai/I-Pipe maintainers,
>
> Attached is an obvious patch (to me). Part of it is across I-Pipe.
> Is there a reason why the counter was declared signed?
>
Well, because the number of faults was not expected to increase
indefinitely... Is it the PF count we are ta
