On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:01:04 -0500, "Paul Jackson" <pj@xxxxxxx> said:
> Alexander wrote:
> > Sure. This patch introduces lib/nodemask.c, but I'm not quite sure
> > if building it should depend on CONFIG_SMP or something else (NUMA?).
> > When is MAX_NUMNODES 1?
>
> Well ... I'm pretty sure it made sense to depend on SMP, back when
> it was first added. However that might have changed. I recall
> vaguely that there has been discussion of this CONFIG_SMP dependency
> every year or so, but I don't have the time right now to dig through
> the archives and code to figure it out.
>
> So ... offhand ... good questions, but I don't have answers.
>
> > I'ld be happy to take a stab at aligning the cpumask and nodemask
> > code even more by uninlining some more functions and using stubs
> > for the MAX_NUMNODES=1 case.
>
> That could be good ... though could you co-ordinate with Mike Travis
> first, to minimize the risks of merge conflicts with what he's doing?
I believe the x86#testing tree includes Mike's work? The two patches
in this thread apply fine to current x86#testing.
> You kernel text space saving in the first patch seemed worth going
> ahead with even if it did conflict a little, and I liked the matching
> nodemask patch, just to keep things in sync. Other nodemask cleanup
> is a little lower priority in my book, so should make a modest effort
> to co-ordinate with more critical patches, to minimize conflict.
Thanks for your guidance.
Greetings,
Alexander
> --
> I won't rest till it's the best ...
> Programmer, Linux Scalability
> Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.940.382.4214
--
Alexander van Heukelum
heukelum@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
or over the web
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
