On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 07:45:01AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > /* This helps us to avoid #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA */
> > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > #define NUMA_BUILD 1
> > #else
> > #define NUMA_BUILD 0
> > #endif
>
> > mm/page_alloc.c: if (NUMA_BUILD && zlc_active &&
> >
> > not a lot of avoiding going on there, i'd say.
>
> but it's important where it happens. it would uglify the code
> significantly to replace the if (NUMA_BUILD) with #ifdef
> CONFIG_NUMA. Maybe NUMA_BUILD should be used in more places, but how
> about doing something useful instead?
i wasn't planning on changing any of that, i was just trying to figure
out why the comment promoted "avoiding" the #ifdef when there was so
much of it still around.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry:
Have classroom, will lecture.
http://crashcourse.ca Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
========================================================================
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
