On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:43:21 PST (-0800), atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:13 AM Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Yeah. This was discussed a week back.
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/2021-February/004640.html
@Palmer Dabbelt Is the fix merged in the PR ?
Sorry, I thought I'd sent out the fix for this but forgot to. This just got
merged to Linus' tree, and looking at my code I forgot about it because I
wasn't actually seeing these build failures reproduce locally.
Though looking at my patches (which I just sent) I was fixing some
closely-related isuse, so I'm going to just pick this up. I just sent it out,
it's on fixes.
--- 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
_
_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv
