Package: irqbalance
Version: 1.6.0-3
Followup-For: Bug #922653
Hi,
> Thanks for clarifying. Can you confirm that the patch from Mathieu
> Mirmont will correctly fix this bug? The patch looks reasonable to me,
> but I can't test it on a runit based system at the moment.
Yes, the patch correctly f
Control: severity -1 wishlist
On Wed, 01 Jan 2020 Lorenzo Puliti wrote:
> Package: irqbalance
> Version: 1.6.0-3
> Followup-For: Bug #922653
>
> Hi,
>
> [Paride Legovini ]:
> > I'm not really knowledgeable on runit, for example I
> > wonder: should we use `sv stop`, `down`, or `exit`? From sv(8
Package: irqbalance
Version: 1.6.0-3
Followup-For: Bug #922653
Hi,
[Paride Legovini ]:
> I'm not really knowledgeable on runit, for example I
> wonder: should we use `sv stop`, `down`, or `exit`? From sv(8) I'd say
> `sv down` is preferable, but I'm not sure. I need some time to do some
> proper
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 Mathieu Mirmont wrote:
> Package: irqbalance
> Version: 1.5.0-3
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> While testing something else in a virtual machine I noticed that
> irqbalance exits if it detects a single CPU. When running under runit
> the service is continuously
Package: irqbalance
Version: 1.5.0-3
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi,
While testing something else in a virtual machine I noticed that
irqbalance exits if it detects a single CPU. When running under runit
the service is continuously restarted.
I would suggest detecting this case directly from th
5 matches
Mail list logo