>
> Looking at the eal_thread_init_master, I think it's probably a
> recoverable condition. For instance, perhaps the core mask was wrong,
> and could be corrected by re-attempting the initialization. Just
> suggesting that it's probably okay to allow a re-attempt here. I would
> suggest:
>
> -
Arnon Warshavsky writes:
> Thanks Aaron
>
> Previously, it wasn't possible for mem_cfg_fd to be reused after a
>
> failure. Now it is - please reset it to -1. in these close conditions.
>
> Will do.
>
> Again, previously this would have aborted on a failure. So it needs to
> be reset to a
Thanks Aaron
Previously, it wasn't possible for mem_cfg_fd to be reused after a
> failure. Now it is - please reset it to -1. in these close conditions.
>
> Will do.
>
>
> Again, previously this would have aborted on a failure. So it needs to
> be reset to a value that allows retry.
>
Same h
Agree. As I wrote below - I will put this instance back in place for this
patchset and handle it on a different one
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kevin Traynor wrote:
> On 04/19/2018 03:57 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> > On 19-Apr-18 3:48 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
> >> Copy on the commit me
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:57 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 19-Apr-18 3:48 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
>
>> Copy on the commit message and volatile.
>>
>> Regarding the new function defunct_and_remain_in_endless_loop ()
>> I don't think I can put that in a separate patch without breaking the
>
Arnon Warshavsky writes:
> Local functions to this file,
> changing from void to int are non-abi-breaking.
> For handling the single function that cannot
> change from void to int due to abi,
> where this is the only place it is called in,
> I added a state variable that is being checked
> right
On 04/19/2018 03:57 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 19-Apr-18 3:48 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
>> Copy on the commit message and volatile.
>>
>> Regarding the new function defunct_and_remain_in_endless_loop ()
>> I don't think I can put that in a separate patch without breaking the
>> current pat
On 19-Apr-18 3:48 PM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
Copy on the commit message and volatile.
Regarding the new function defunct_and_remain_in_endless_loop ()
I don't think I can put that in a separate patch without breaking the
current patch independence.
How so?
Just leave some panic instances i
Copy on the commit message and volatile.
Regarding the new function defunct_and_remain_in_endless_loop ()
I don't think I can put that in a separate patch without breaking the
current patch independence.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Burakov, Anatoly wrote:
> On 19-Apr-18 7:01 AM, Arnon Wa
On 19-Apr-18 7:01 AM, Arnon Warshavsky wrote:
Local functions to this file,
changing from void to int are non-abi-breaking.
For handling the single function that cannot
change from void to int due to abi,
where this is the only place it is called in,
I added a state variable that is being checked
Local functions to this file,
changing from void to int are non-abi-breaking.
For handling the single function that cannot
change from void to int due to abi,
where this is the only place it is called in,
I added a state variable that is being checked
right after the call to this function.
--
v4
11 matches
Mail list logo
