lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:39:41 -0800 (PST) From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 3/6] x86, 64bit, numa: Put pgtable to local node memory On Wed, 29 Dec 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> -v2: update it to recent numa-emulation change > >> > > > > Lovely, yet another interbranch conflict. This makes me very concerned. > > > > What is the delta between these? > > > > your new x86/numa have > > setup_physnodes(addr, max_addr, acpi, amd); > fake_physnodes(acpi, amd, num_nodes); > > instead of > > acpi_fake_nodes(nodes, num_nodes); > > in numa_emulation() > That's from f51bf3073a1 (x86, numa: Fake apicid and pxm mappings for NUMA emulation) and c1c3443c9c (x86, numa: Fake node-to-cpumask for NUMA emulation) in x86/numa. Given the subject line, I think your patchset is targeted to the same branch so I'm not sure what's concerning?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists