I believe initalized is being used to not recurse into the
__hugetlbfs_init_debug() function, but it's never being set in the
function, so I'm not sure it's have the desired effect.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/debug.c b/debug.c
index 90fa5dc..d561a14 100644
I believe __hugetlbfs_init_debug() can be static? It's only called from
another static function, even though that one is a constructor. Not sure
why it was extern'd in libhugetlbfs_internal.h, as it's not used by
anyone else. Compile- and run-tested (make check and make checkv).
Signed-off-by: Nis
Two more functions that can be marked static. Compile- and run-tested.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/elflink.c b/elflink.c
index 86ef7ae..f8c1ac6 100644
--- a/elflink.c
+++ b/elflink.c
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ static int prepare_segment(struct seg_in
retur
On 09.08.2006 [15:55:52 -0500], Adam Litke wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 12:01 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Description: Recalculate the number of free hugepages before using it
> > has a parameter in run_tests.sh. The number may change due to the
> > sharing tests or other things running
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 21:23 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Ok, we have all this talk about how it all goes bang and doesn't work...
> but then there was this commit below, which I'd expect to restore the
> semantic? Or did I miss something.
>
> -apw
>
> commit 3da5975d7e12aebd8d7614f48d8c0d68c
On 16.08.2006 [21:23:59 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > On 16.08.2006 [16:45:22 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >> Adam Litke wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 16.08.2006 [16:45:22 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> Adam Litke wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> morecore's comments indicate t
On 16.08.2006 [16:45:22 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Adam Litke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >> On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> >>> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallp
Adam Litke wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>> On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallpage malloc
if we run out of hugepages at runtime, but that
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 08:12 -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > >morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallpage malloc
> > >if we run out of hugepages at runtime, but that is not the case. Modi
On 16.08.2006 [10:11:37 +0100], Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallpage malloc
> >if we run out of hugepages at runtime, but that is not the case. Modify
> >one comment and remove another to not confuse anyone.
> >
> >Sig
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> morecore's comments indicate that we will failover to smallpage malloc
> if we run out of hugepages at runtime, but that is not the case. Modify
> one comment and remove another to not confuse anyone.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> diff
12 matches
Mail list logo
