Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > That leaves us with just 2 options for now. > 1. Update numa_mem later and only update numa_node here. > - Over a longer period of time, this would be more confusing since we > may lose track of why we are splitting the set of numa_node and numa_mem. > > or > 2. Use my earlier patch. > > My choice would be to go with my earlier patch. > Please do let me know your thoughts on the same.
OK, agreed. Thanks.
