On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 14:27 +0100, Benjamin Krill wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 17:18 +0100, Benjamin Krill wrote:
> >>> SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
> >>> by the current routine. The current routine returns
> >>> because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
> >>>
>>On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 17:18 +0100, Benjamin Krill wrote:
>>> SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
>>> by the current routine. The current routine returns
>>> because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
>>> fix this patch adds a check to determine the partition
>>> child n
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt | 2009-02-04 15:09:02 [+1100]:
>On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 17:18 +0100, Benjamin Krill wrote:
>> SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
>> by the current routine. The current routine returns
>> because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
>> fix this patch
On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 17:18 +0100, Benjamin Krill wrote:
> SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
> by the current routine. The current routine returns
> because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
> fix this patch adds a check to determine the partition
> child nodes. If the
SLOF has a further node which could not be evaluate
by the current routine. The current routine returns
because the node hasn't the required reg property. As
fix this patch adds a check to determine the partition
child nodes. If the node is not an partition the number
of total partitions will be de
