On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 16:18 -0800, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
> wrote:
> > This patch to update copyright year to current for principal target core
> > ownership is now being pushed into target-pending/for-next.
>
> Pardon me, but you were just pub
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
wrote:
> This patch to update copyright year to current for principal target core
> ownership is now being pushed into target-pending/for-next.
Pardon me, but you were just publicly accused of violating the GPL, so
your response is to send a p
This thread is certainly fascinating. As someone who has enforced the
GPL for over a decade, and who coordinates a coalition of Linux
developers who do GPL enforcement, I am very concerned about any
accusation of GPL violation, and I hope that this situation can be
resolved reasonably and swiftly.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:15:21PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 11:00:14PM +, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > From: Nicholas Bellinger
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > This patch to update copyright year to current for principal target core
> > ownership is now
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 11:00:14PM +, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> From: Nicholas Bellinger
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> This patch to update copyright year to current for principal target core
> ownership is now being pushed into target-pending/for-next.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger
On 11/09/12 20:18, Jeff Moyer wrote:
- cmd = kmem_cache_zalloc(pool->cmd_slab, gfp_mask | pool->gfp_mask);
+ cmd = kmem_cache_alloc_node(pool->cmd_slab,
+ gfp_mask | pool->gfp_mask | __GFP_ZERO,
+ node);
Hello Jeff,
On 11/09/12 21:46, Jeff Moyer wrote:
On 11/06/12 16:41, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
It's certainly better to tie them all to one node then let them be
randomly scattered across nodes; your 6% observation may simply be
from that.
How do you think these compare, though (for structures
7 matches
Mail list logo
