On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
On Wednesday 23 March 2016 04:57 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:
Hello Vaishali,
The patch looks good to me. However, I have few trivial questions.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
When any unsupported hugepage size is specified, 'huge
On Wednesday 23 March 2016 04:57 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:
> Hello Vaishali,
>
>
> The patch looks good to me. However, I have few trivial questions.
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
>
>> When any unsupported hugepage size is specified, 'hugepagesz=' and
>> 'hugepages=' should be
On 03/22/2016 03:00 AM, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> When any unsupported hugepage size is specified, 'hugepagesz=' and
> 'hugepages=' should be ignored during command line parsing until any
> supported hugepage size is found. But currently incorrect number of
> hugepages are allocated when unsupporte
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:30:43PM +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
> When any unsupported hugepage size is specified, 'hugepagesz=' and
> 'hugepages=' should be ignored during command line parsing until any
> supported hugepage size is found. But currently incorrect number of
> hugepages are allocat
Hello Vaishali,
The patch looks good to me. However, I have few trivial questions.
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Vaishali Thakkar wrote:
When any unsupported hugepage size is specified, 'hugepagesz=' and
'hugepages=' should be ignored during command line parsing until any
supported hugepage size is f
When any unsupported hugepage size is specified, 'hugepagesz=' and
'hugepages=' should be ignored during command line parsing until any
supported hugepage size is found. But currently incorrect number of
hugepages are allocated when unsupported size is specified as it fails
to ignore the 'hugepages
6 matches
Mail list logo