On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 17:51 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > No, why was node_start_pfn() and node_end_pfn() defined optionally > on a per-architecture basis? Probably because it started in the NUMA-Q port, and we were still trying to stay off the radar at that point. It looks like it showed up in ~2.5.[3-4]?. We didn't know what the heck we were doing back then, and it probably leaked out from under CONFIG_NUMA/DISCONTIGMEM at some point. Seems like a good thing to consolidate to me. Especially since it's just a shortcut to the (unconditionally defined) structure member, I can't see a real justification for needing different definitions. -- Dave -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>