On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 17:01 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2018 02:56 AM, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:56 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
> > > as -1. Even though implicitly understo
On 12/05/2018 02:56 AM, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:56 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
>> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
>> in there. Replace these open
On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:56 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
> in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number with the
> global
On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:56 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
> in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number with the
> global
On 26-11-18, 17:56, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
> in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number with the
> global macro NUMA_NO_
On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:56 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is
> encoded
> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have
> macros
> in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number
> with the
>
Anshuman Khandual writes:
> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
> in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number with the
> global macro NUMA_NO_NODE. This helps r
On 11/26/18 10:56 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 17:56 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is
>> encoded
>> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have
>> macros
>> in there. Replace these open e
On 11/26/2018 06:18 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 26.11.18 13:26, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
>> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
>> in there. Replace these open encodings for
On 26.11.18 13:26, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
> as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
> in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number with the
> global macro NUMA_NO_N
At present there are multiple places where invalid node number is encoded
as -1. Even though implicitly understood it is always better to have macros
in there. Replace these open encodings for an invalid node number with the
global macro NUMA_NO_NODE. This helps remove NUMA related assumptions like
11 matches
Mail list logo