On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:52:49PM +0200, Henrik Austad wrote:
> Code will snould not call numa_available(), but compiler will complain
snould -> should.
Why should it not call it?
> with:
>
> src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h:263: warning: implicit declaration of function ???numa_available???
>
> Signed-off-by: Henrik Austad <haustad@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h b/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h
> index 06c9420..172d9b2 100644
> --- a/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h
> +++ b/src/cyclictest/rt_numa.h
> @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ struct bitmask {
> };
> #define BITS_PER_LONG (8*sizeof(long))
>
> +static inline int numa_available(void) { return 0; }
I would have expected this to return -1, as libnuma isn't available...
John and I were talking about this earlier this week:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/787515a5a59861a892ac3a44b6c6c502cfc102fd.1441038216.git.joshc@xxxxxx
Josh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
