Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2005 13:11:44 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] unregister_node() for hotplug use |
| |
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:58:36AM -0700, Matthew Dobson wrote: > Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:15:29AM -0700, Matthew Dobson wrote: > > > >>So I think it's probably a good idea to stick the __devinit on > >>register_node() and unregister_node(), otherwise we have no marker to know > >>which functions to remove for CONFIG_TINY. Greg? > > > > > > Like _anyone_ would have CONFIG_NUMA and CONFIG_TINY enabled at the same > > time? I don't think so... > > > > I'll leave it as is for now. > > No, it seems unlikely that anyone would build with CONFIG_NUMA and > CONFIG_TINY both enabled. But it is possible and reasonable to build with > CONFIG_NUMA=y and CONFIG_HOTPLUG=n, which is the case I was trying to speak > to. If NUMA is on and HOTPLUG is off, then we're wasting kernel text > (granted, it's a very small amount of space) for the register_node() & > unregister_node() functions that we *know* will never be called after > initial bootup. That's why I suggested marking both of those functions as > __devinit. But it doesn't make a huge difference either way.
I do not think this is an issue, and I want to move CONFIG_HOTPLUG to be under CONFIG_TINY anyway, so you could only disable it if TINY is enabled. But that's a different email thread...
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |