On Fri, 19 Feb 2021, Peter Xu wrote: > Daniel, > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 05:20:19PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 10:24:17AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > > Yes I explicitly avoided touching parse_cpumask because I don't want to change > > > behavior of other tools if I'm not confident with that. Would above two > > > patches fix oslat too (which I didn't check)? If so, I'll be fine to have this > > > patch dropped. Otherwise I tend to prefer fixing oslat first. We can further > > > rework the common code, but if existing tools are fine, then I don't think it's > > > a bugfix, so no need to rush. While I'll count this patch as a real bugfix, so > > > I'd hope we could consider merging it earlier. > > > > As I said, I would really appreciated if all tools behave the same > > way. Having oslat be special is going to be pain in the long run. Just > > update parse_cpumask, it's not that difficult :) > > Oslat is broken now after the numa rework. Frankly I'm surprised it's broken > so quickly with just a few commits and actually with no new feature at all but > pure cleanups. Again I still appreciate all your work on this but I don't > really appreciate a lot for having it broken.. > > Now I tried to fix it but it seems you don't really like my fix. > > Would you propose yours instead? I would be more than glad if your version is > better then I'm happy to drop mine. Otherwise I'll still prefer to have this > patch merged to unbreak it first. > > Thanks, > > -- > Peter Xu > > Hey, I accepted your patch, we're just discussing how to make things work in the best way for the whole suite in the future. Thanks for your patches! John
