On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 08.07.2014 13:50, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were numerous places where numatune configuration (and thus
domain config as well) was changed in different ways. On some
places this even resulted in persistent domain
On 15.07.2014 08:33, Martin Kletzander wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
On 08.07.2014 13:50, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were numerous places where numatune configuration (and thus
domain config as well) was changed in different ways. On some
places
On 07/15/2014 02:44 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
I take the 'const' as a sign of the fact that I won't be modifying
any part of the string. Just adding 'const' to a pointer should be
perfectly OK, but I have not objections to your idea, so I squashed
this in:
Well, I look at free()-ing as
On 08.07.2014 13:50, Martin Kletzander wrote:
There were numerous places where numatune configuration (and thus
domain config as well) was changed in different ways. On some
places this even resulted in persistent domain definition not to be
stable (it would change with daemon's restart).
In
There were numerous places where numatune configuration (and thus
domain config as well) was changed in different ways. On some
places this even resulted in persistent domain definition not to be
stable (it would change with daemon's restart).
In order to uniformly change how numatune config is
