Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 May 2005 13:13:41 -0700 | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Subject | Re: [RFC/PATCH] unregister_node() for hotplug use |
| |
Greg KH wrote: > 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
Fair enough. We'll leave those functions alone...
-Matt
- 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/
| |