: 51551d71edbc998fd8c8afa7312db3d270f5998e
patch link:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230323092156.2545741-3-rppt%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of
ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
config: arm64-randconfig-r031-20230322
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230324
: 51551d71edbc998fd8c8afa7312db3d270f5998e
patch link:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230323092156.2545741-3-rppt%40kernel.org
patch subject: [PATCH 02/14] arm64: drop ranges in definition of
ARCH_FORCE_MAX_ORDER
config: arm64-randconfig-r022-20230322
(https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230323/202303232149
On 23 Mar 2023, at 6:37, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15:33AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>>> From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)"
>>>
>>> It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory
>>> mana
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 10:15:33AM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)"
> >
> > It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory
> > management. Having predefined ranges suggests that th
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:21:44AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)"
>
> It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory
> management. Having predefined ranges suggests that the values within
> those ranges are sensible, but one has to *really* unders
From: "Mike Rapoport (IBM)"
It is not a good idea to change fundamental parameters of core memory
management. Having predefined ranges suggests that the values within
those ranges are sensible, but one has to *really* understand
implications of changing MAX_ORDER before actually amending it and
r
