On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. It avoids it in the sense that you can now use NUMA_BUILD in expression, as opposed to CONFIG_NUMA, which won't take the value 0 if it's =n. It is not intended to replace CONFIG_NUMA when it is not used inside expressions. (That's my understanding of it anyway). Vegard -- 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
