Hmm ping...
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
> Hi, Borislav and all
>
> Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments?
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav
Hmm ping...
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
> Hi, Borislav and all
>
> Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments?
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>>On Fri, Feb 17,
Hi, Borislav and all
Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments?
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> In case (last_start <=
Hi, Borislav and all
Do you agree with my analysis or you have other comments?
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> In case (last_start <=
Hi, Borislav
Do you still have some concern on this change?
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for
Hi, Borislav
Do you still have some concern on this change?
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is
>
Hmm, I may write it more specific:
"start" is for sure to be set to 0 with
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 07:50:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is
>
Hmm, I may write it more specific:
"start" is for sure to be set to 0 with
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is
Well, lemme see:
[0.00] memory_map_top_down: entry, [0x10:0x7ffdf000)
[0.00] memory_map_top_down: addr: 0x7fc0, real_end: 0x7fe0
[
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:30:33PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is
Well, lemme see:
[0.00] memory_map_top_down: entry, [0x10:0x7ffdf000)
[0.00] memory_map_top_down: addr: 0x7fc0, real_end: 0x7fe0
[
In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is
save to do the round_down for all cases and set start to map_start when
start is smaller than map_start.
>From the performance point of view, this also reduces the check on each
iteration.
This patch unifies the code on
In case (last_start <= step_size), start is for sure to be 0. So, it is
save to do the round_down for all cases and set start to map_start when
start is smaller than map_start.
>From the performance point of view, this also reduces the check on each
iteration.
This patch unifies the code on
12 matches
Mail list logo