Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

2019-12-19 Thread Eduardo Habkost
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 01:48:56PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported > to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change > set it to true for sbsa-ref board. > > Luckily change didn't break machines that support

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

2019-12-15 Thread Tao Xu
On 12/13/2019 5:12 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:33:10 +0800 Tao Xu wrote: On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change set it to true

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

2019-12-13 Thread Igor Mammedov
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:33:10 +0800 Tao Xu wrote: > On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported > > to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change > > set it to true for sbsa-ref board. > > > >

Re: [PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

2019-12-12 Thread Tao Xu
On 12/12/2019 8:48 PM, Igor Mammedov wrote: Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change set it to true for sbsa-ref board. Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field is set

[PATCH 2/2] numa: properly check if numa is supported

2019-12-12 Thread Igor Mammedov
Commit aa57020774b, by mistake used MachineClass::numa_mem_supported to check if NUMA is supported by machine and also as unrelated change set it to true for sbsa-ref board. Luckily change didn't break machines that support NUMA, as the field is set to true for them. But the field is not