On 04/09/2014 11:17 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:39 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>> That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
>>> (at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not
On 04/09/2014 11:17 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:39 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
(at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
the
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:39 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
> > (at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
> > the units of
On 04/10/2014 11:14 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:49 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
>>> Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
>>> SECTION to userspace?
>>
>> Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:49 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> > Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
> > SECTION to userspace?
>
> Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do we?
>
OK, I agree with that.
On 04/10/2014 01:39 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>
>> That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
>> (at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
>> the units of phys_index/end_phys_index without
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
> (at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
> the units of phys_index/end_phys_index without also changing
> block_size_bytes.
>
Here is a first
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 11:23 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
>> On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
userspace incompatibility could be
On 04/09/2014 10:49 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
>> Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
>> SECTION to userspace?
>
> Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do we?
>
No. the layout in sysfs is based in
On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
> SECTION to userspace?
Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do we?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:47 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 11:23 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> > On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> >>> If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
> >>> userspace
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:47 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/08/2014 11:23 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
userspace incompatibility could be
On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
SECTION to userspace?
Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do we?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On 04/09/2014 10:49 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
SECTION to userspace?
Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do we?
No. the layout in sysfs is based in
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/08/2014 11:23 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
userspace incompatibility could be accepted by
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
(at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
the units of phys_index/end_phys_index without also changing
block_size_bytes.
Here is a first pass at
On 04/10/2014 01:39 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
(at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
the units of phys_index/end_phys_index without also
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:49 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
SECTION to userspace?
Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do we?
OK, I agree with that.
Yanfei,
On 04/10/2014 11:14 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:49 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/09/2014 02:20 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
Or do you mean we don't need to expose any information related to
SECTION to userspace?
Right, we don't need to expose sections themselves to userspace. Do
On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 12:39 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
That document really needs to be updated to stop referring to sections
(at least in the descriptions of the user interface). We can not change
the units of phys_index/end_phys_index
On 04/08/2014 11:23 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
>>> If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
>>> userspace incompatibility could be accepted by most of us, and I don't
>>> need to
On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
>> If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
>> userspace incompatibility could be accepted by most of us, and I don't
>> need to make a version 2.
>
> Let me ask another question
On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
> userspace incompatibility could be accepted by most of us, and I don't
> need to make a version 2.
Let me ask another question then. What are the units of
phys_index/end_phys_index?
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 10:29 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
> (2014/04/02 17:56), Li Zhong wrote:
> > I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
> > /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
> > (for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
> >
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 10:29 +0900, Yasuaki Ishimatsu wrote:
(2014/04/02 17:56), Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
userspace incompatibility could be accepted by most of us, and I don't
need to make a version 2.
Let me ask another question then. What are the units of
phys_index/end_phys_index?
On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
userspace incompatibility could be accepted by most of us, and I don't
need to make a version 2.
Let me ask another question then. What
On 04/08/2014 11:23 AM, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
On 04/08/2014 11:13 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/08/2014 01:27 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
If Dave and others don't have further objections, it seems this small
userspace incompatibility could be accepted by most of us, and I don't
need to make a version
(2014/04/02 17:56), Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
sections_per_block equals 8)
# cd /sys/devices/system/memory/memory100/
# cat
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/02/2014 01:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
>> I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
>> /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
>> (for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
>>
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:06 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 10:37 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> >> Add ccing
> >>
> >> On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
> >>> I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
> >>>
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Dave Hansen dave.han...@intel.com wrote:
On 04/02/2014 01:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
(2014/04/02 17:56), Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
sections_per_block equals 8)
# cd /sys/devices/system/memory/memory100/
# cat
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:06 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
On 04/03/2014 10:37 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
Add ccing
On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
On 04/03/2014 10:37 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
>> Add ccing
>>
>> On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
>>> I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
>>> /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
>>> (for the test
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
> Add ccing
>
> On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
> > I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
> > /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
> > (for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections,
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:09 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 04/02/2014 01:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> > I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
> > /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
> > (for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
> >
Add ccing
On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
> I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
> /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
> (for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
> sections_per_block equals 8)
>
> # cd
On 04/02/2014 01:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
> I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
> /sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
> (for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
> sections_per_block equals 8)
>
> # cd
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
sections_per_block equals 8)
# cd /sys/devices/system/memory/memory100/
# cat phys_index end_phys_index
0064
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
sections_per_block equals 8)
# cd /sys/devices/system/memory/memory100/
# cat phys_index end_phys_index
0064
On 04/02/2014 01:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
sections_per_block equals 8)
# cd
Add ccing
On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
sections_per_block equals 8)
# cd
On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:09 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 04/02/2014 01:56 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
Add ccing
On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one memory block has 8 sections, that is
On 04/03/2014 10:37 AM, Li Zhong wrote:
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:37 +0800, Zhang Yanfei wrote:
Add ccing
On 04/02/2014 04:56 PM, Li Zhong wrote:
I noticed the phys_index and end_phys_index under
/sys/devices/system/memory/memoryXXX/ have the same value, e.g.
(for the test machine, one
46 matches
Mail list logo
