From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mem: command line option to delete hugepage backing files Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 12:01:08 +0000 Message-ID: <562F6784.80704@intel.com> References: <1445419101-19690-1-git-send-email-shesha@cisco.com> <562F633B.2090806@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha)" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295C1374E for ; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:01:34 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <562F633B.2090806@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On 27/10/2015 11:42, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote: > On 21/10/2015 17:22, shesha Sreenivasamurthy (shesha) wrote: >> When an application using huge-pages crash or exists, the hugetlbfs >> backing files are not cleaned up. This is a patch to clean those files. >> There are multi-process DPDK applications that may be benefited by those >> backing files. Therefore, I have made that configurable so that the >> application that does not need those backing files can remove them, thus >> not changing the current default behavior. The application itself can >> clean it up, however the rationale behind DPDK cleaning it up is, DPDK >> created it and therefore, it is better it unlinks it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shesha Sreenivasamurthy >> --- >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_common_options.c | 12 ++++++++++++ >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_internal_cfg.h | 1 + >> lib/librte_eal/common/eal_options.h | 2 ++ >> lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/eal_memory.c | 30 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+) >> > You need to update patchwork to reflect that v4 is rejected and set v3 > with 'New' state. > > Acked-by: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Hi Shesha, Even though the test-report says the patch is good, it is not. For some reason it is wrapping some lines (76, 93, 106, 129) causing the errors. You can add my Acked-by when you resend the patch. Sergio