22/07/2021 23:06, John Levon:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:29:45PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:00 PM John Levon wrote:
> > >
> > > get_hugepage_dir() was implemented in such a way that a --huge-dir
> > > option had to exactly match the mountpoint, but there's no re
On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:29:45PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:00 PM John Levon wrote:
> >
> > get_hugepage_dir() was implemented in such a way that a --huge-dir
> > option had to exactly match the mountpoint, but there's no reason for
> > this restriction. Fix the imp
On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 1:00 PM John Levon wrote:
>
> get_hugepage_dir() was implemented in such a way that a --huge-dir
> option had to exactly match the mountpoint, but there's no reason for
> this restriction. Fix the implementation to allow a sub-directory within
> a suitable hugetlbfs mountpoi
2021-07-08 11:59 (UTC+0100), John Levon:
> get_hugepage_dir() was implemented in such a way that a --huge-dir
> option had to exactly match the mountpoint, but there's no reason for
> this restriction. Fix the implementation to allow a sub-directory within
> a suitable hugetlbfs mountpoint to be sp
get_hugepage_dir() was implemented in such a way that a --huge-dir
option had to exactly match the mountpoint, but there's no reason for
this restriction. Fix the implementation to allow a sub-directory within
a suitable hugetlbfs mountpoint to be specified, preferring the closest
match.
Signed-of
5 matches
Mail list logo
