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
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
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.
> >
> >
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
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