On 11/22/2017 04:45 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 11/22/2017 12:22 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/14/2017 09:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances
>>> is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However,
>>> it ma
On 11/22/2017 12:22 AM, John Ferlan wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/2017 09:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances
>> is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However,
>> it makes sense to check if the sibling node caller passed fal
On 11/14/2017 09:47 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances
> is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However,
> it makes sense to check if the sibling node caller passed falls
> within boundaries.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal P
There's no point in checking if numa->mem_nodes[node].ndistances
is set if we check for numa->mem_nodes[node].distances. However,
it makes sense to check if the sibling node caller passed falls
within boundaries.
Signed-off-by: Michal Privoznik
---
src/conf/numa_conf.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1