> Yasunori Goto <y-goto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > +/* Proximity bitmap length */ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NR_NODES_CHANGABLE > > +#define MAX_PXM_DOMAINS CONFIG_NR_NODES > > +#else > > +#define MAX_PXM_DOMAINS (256) > > +#endif > > I don't think we need CONFIG_NR_NODES_CHANGABLE (it is spelled > "changeable", btw). > > If the architecture wants to support changing of CONFIG_NR_NODES then it > can permit CONFIG_NR_NODES to be changed in its Kconfig implementation. > > If the architecture doesn't want to permit changing of CONFIG_NR_NODES > then it should simply hardwire CONFIG_NR_NODES to the chosen value in > its Kconfig. > > So all architectures which use acpi_numa must implement CONFIG_NR_NODES. > > In fact, it would probably make sense to require that all NUMA-supporting > archtectures implement CONFIG_NR_NODES. > > Also, we already have NODES_SHIFT defined in include/asm-*/numnodes.h. > What's the relationship between that and CONFIG_NR_NODES? It seems that we > want to derive NODES_SHIFT from CONFIG_NR_NODES. > > Was ia64's CONFIG_IA64_NR_NODES the best choice? Should ia64 instead have > made NODES_SHIFT Kconfigurable, and derived its max-nr_nodes from that? > > It's all a bit of a pickle. > > > I guess for now a suitable approach would be to make all numa-using > architectures define CONFIG_NR_NODES, and to leave that rather > unpleasant-looking code in include/asm-ia64/numnodes.h as it is. > Ahhh. I understand what you wish at last. I thought relationship between pxm and nid is just acpi-using architecture's issue. But, it becomes for all numa-using architecture's issue. Ok. I'll change it. Thanks. -- Yasunori Goto - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
