On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:00:47AM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
From: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@xxxxxxxxxx>
--- a/mm/compaction.c
+++ b/mm/compaction.c
@@ -16,30 +16,11 @@
#include <linux/sysfs.h>
#include "internal.h"
+#if defined CONFIG_COMPACTION || defined CONFIG_CMA
+
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:57:26 +0100, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is pedantic but you reference CONFIG_CMA before the patch that
declares it. The only time this really matters is when it breaks
bisection but I do not think that is the case here.
I think I'll choose to be lazy on this one. ;) I actually tried to move
some commits around to resolve this future-reference, but this resulted
in quite a few conflicts during rebase and after several minutes I decided
that it's not worth the effort.
Whether you fix this or not by moving the CONFIG_CMA check to the same
patch that declares it in Kconfig
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx>
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +----<email/xmpp: mpn@xxxxxxxxxx>--------------ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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