On Wednesday 08 March 2006 15:02, Dean Roe wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:35:19AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Monday 06 March 2006 09:32, Dean Roe wrote: > > > - for_each_node(cnode) { > > > + /* > > > + * FIXME: replace with cleaner for_each_XXX macro which addresses > > > + * both compute and IO nodes once ACPI3.0 is available. > > > + */ > > > + for (cnode = 0; cnode < num_cnodes; cnode++) { > > > > I don't understand this ACPI 3.0 dependency. Can't you just define > > for_each_XXX() the way you want it, and fill in the bitmask or whatever > > it uses either (a) using ACPI 3.0 data, or (b) some interim hack? > > > > Bjorn > > I can't really tell from your response, so...did you see Jack's explanation > of this? > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m=114141537904761&w=2 > > Are you saying you *really* want a for_each_sn_cnode() macro? I guess > we can go that route if necessary...I just prefer the one-line change > rather than changing 4-5 files when we aren't really sure yet what the > final implementation will look like. I saw his response, but it wasn't clear to me what ACPI 3.0 is going to solve. Are you saying that with ACPI 3.0, you will be able to use for_each_node()? If that's the case, my question is, why can't you use for_each_node() today, and use some interim hack to fill in node_possible_map? If not, what "for_each_XXX" macro are you planning to use when you have ACPI 3.0? - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |