On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
> > this
> > particular patch adds NODEMASK_ALLOC(nodemask, nodes_allowed) which would
> > expand out to allocating a "struct nodemask" either dynamically or on the
> > stack and such an object doesn't exist in the kernel.
>
> and in include/linux/nodemask.h, I see:
>
> typedef struct nodemask { DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, MAX_NUMNODES); } nodemask_t;
>
> Don't know why you're seeing that error this series on mmotm-090925...
>
This is
typedef struct { DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, MAX_NUMNODES); } nodemask_t;
in include/linux/nodemask.h; it has been anonymous as long as Linus' git
history has been around. Perhaps you changed this locally but didn't
generate a diff hunk for it when you sent the patches?
Regardless, there is no "struct nodemask" in the kernel so this patchset
will fail to build on vanilla mmotm-09251435. I think we can leave
nodemask_t alone and simply merge my patch so that NODEMASK_ALLOC can work
on anonymous structs as well.
> > Feel free to just fold it into patch 4 so the series builds incrementally.
>
> In V9, I have it as a separate patch, primarily to maintain attribution
> for now.
Attribution is easy by just adding
[rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx: make NODEMASK_ALLOC more general]
before your Signed-off-by line and picking up my Signed-off-by line from
my patch proposal; that's why I proposed it the way I did. This indicates
you've folded a fix by rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx into your patch with a short
description of what I did.
> I had originally thought that it would be easy to include this
> patch or not, depending on whether your NODEMASK_ALLOC generalization
> patch was already merged. But, this fix causes a messy patch rejection
> in the per node attributes patch, so having separate really doesn't help
> that. V9 depends on your patch now.
>
Once your tree is cleaned so that it no longer includes a "struct
nodemask," I think you'll favor my suggestion because then each patch in
the series successfully builds.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
