Section: 22.214.171.124 [mem.res.pool.options] Status: New Submitter: Jens Maurer Opened: 2016-12-15 Last modified: 2017-02-02 00:41:18 UTC
View all issues with New status.
126.96.36.199 [mem.res.pool.options] p3 talks about a "pass-through-threshold".First, the phrase is not defined and it seems it could be easily avoided given the context. Second, given the phrasing here, it seems the implementation is essentially allowed to ignore the value largest_required_pool_block as it sees fit. It is unclear whether that is the intention.
Priority 3; Jonathan will ask Alisdair for wording.