On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 23:45:18 +0800 kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > tree/branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > branch HEAD: d01f2f7e35573049673b71e18be7abfe3f80323f Add linux-next specific files for 20210226 > > ... > > page_alloc.c:(.text+0xe028): undefined reference to `node_reclaim_distance' > riscv32-linux-ld: page_alloc.c:(.text+0xe02c): undefined reference to `node_reclaim_distance' > > ... > > |-- riscv-randconfig-p001-20210226 > | |-- page_alloc.c:(.text):undefined-reference-to-node_reclaim_distance > | `-- riscv32-linux-ld:page_alloc.c:(.text):undefined-reference-to-node_reclaim_distance I assume the riscv randconfig managed to create a .config with CONFIG_NUMA=n, CONFIG_SMP=y. Configuration doesn't make a lot of sense, unless someone has a single-CPU machine with cpuless nodes... Could the riscv maintainers please test and merge this? --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig~a +++ a/arch/riscv/Kconfig @@ -314,6 +314,7 @@ endchoice # Common NUMA Features config NUMA bool "NUMA Memory Allocation and Scheduler Support" + depends on SMP select GENERIC_ARCH_NUMA select OF_NUMA select ARCH_SUPPORTS_NUMA_BALANCING _
