On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:50:33PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>On 08/11/2015 10:43 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:39:02AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>On 08/06/2015 02:11 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
The available PE#, represented by a bitmap in the PHB, is allocat
On 08/11/2015 10:43 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:39:02AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
On 08/06/2015 02:11 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
The available PE#, represented by a bitmap in the PHB, is allocated
in ascending order.
Available PE# is available exactly because it is no
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:39:02AM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>On 08/06/2015 02:11 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>The available PE#, represented by a bitmap in the PHB, is allocated
>>in ascending order.
>
>Available PE# is available exactly because it is not allocated ;)
>
Yeah, will correct it.
On 08/06/2015 02:11 PM, Gavin Shan wrote:
The available PE#, represented by a bitmap in the PHB, is allocated
in ascending order.
Available PE# is available exactly because it is not allocated ;)
It conflicts with the fact that M64 segments are
assigned in same order. In order to avoid the co
The available PE#, represented by a bitmap in the PHB, is allocated
in ascending order. It conflicts with the fact that M64 segments are
assigned in same order. In order to avoid the conflict, the patch
allocates PE# in descending order.
Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/power
