This has really been a long time, not sure we have any concern on this?
This change looks good to me which make the numa emulation more robust.
And David has acked.
Welcome any comments on this.
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:04:50PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>My previous patch "x86/mm/numa: Remove
This has really been a long time, not sure we have any concern on this?
This change looks good to me which make the numa emulation more robust.
And David has acked.
Welcome any comments on this.
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:04:50PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>My previous patch "x86/mm/numa: Remove
Ping~ Willing to hear some feed back :-)
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:04:50PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>My previous patch "x86/mm/numa: Remove numa_nodemask_from_meminfo()" hits a
>problem in numa_emulation. The reason is numa_nodes_parsed is not set
>correctly after emulation.
>
>This patch set
Ping~ Willing to hear some feed back :-)
On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 09:04:50PM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>My previous patch "x86/mm/numa: Remove numa_nodemask_from_meminfo()" hits a
>problem in numa_emulation. The reason is numa_nodes_parsed is not set
>correctly after emulation.
>
>This patch set
My previous patch "x86/mm/numa: Remove numa_nodemask_from_meminfo()" hits a
problem in numa_emulation. The reason is numa_nodes_parsed is not set
correctly after emulation.
This patch set tries to fix this and also with two code refine.
Detailed discussions are in this thread:
My previous patch "x86/mm/numa: Remove numa_nodemask_from_meminfo()" hits a
problem in numa_emulation. The reason is numa_nodes_parsed is not set
correctly after emulation.
This patch set tries to fix this and also with two code refine.
Detailed discussions are in this thread:
6 matches
Mail list logo