Re: Regression in 543cea9a - was: Re: Kernel problem on rx2800 i2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 6/25/19 14:00, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 01:21:38PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Ok, that looks much better now with the second patch:
...even after a second reboot for verification. Great!(
(...)
I assume this won't affect UMA Itaniums or should I check on one of my
other Integrities if this change breaks the kernel on them?

Nice! I just assume we won't be able to use the patch "as is" as it would
potentially break other architectures if I'm not mistaken.

It doesn't actually _break_ anything, but it regresses in not doing
node local allocations.  Give me some time to dig through the ia64
code to figure out if I can make sense of this.

Thanks for your help and support. I'm happy to test what you come up with.

Cheers,
Frank




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Sparc Linux]     [DCCP]     [Linux ARM]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux x86_64]     [Linux for Ham Radio]

  Powered by Linux