On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:07:28AM -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 17:27 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > At present we compile both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of hugetlbd,
> > which is silly since we neither need nor can run more than one. This
> > patch alters the Makefile to only
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 11:07 -0500, Adam Litke wrote:
> Originally I wanted to do what you are suggesting but... Steve, correct
> me if I am wrong here, but I think Red Hat was requiring the 64bit
> hugetlbd for the x86_64 arch. Since some distros are choosing to go all
> 64bit userspace (like it
On Fri, 2006-10-13 at 17:27 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> At present we compile both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of hugetlbd,
> which is silly since we neither need nor can run more than one. This
> patch alters the Makefile to only compile hugetlbd at the normal
> wordsize (i.e. whatever gcc withou
At present we compile both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of hugetlbd,
which is silly since we neither need nor can run more than one. This
patch alters the Makefile to only compile hugetlbd at the normal
wordsize (i.e. whatever gcc without extra flags uses). The way this
is done does result in an ex
