Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:07:36 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [Patch:001/004]Unify pxm_to_node id ver.3.(generic code) |
| |
Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > +/* Proximity bitmap length */ > +#ifdef CONFIG_NR_NODES_CHANGABLE > +#define MAX_PXM_DOMAINS CONFIG_NR_NODES > +#else > +#define MAX_PXM_DOMAINS (256) > +#endif
I don't think we need CONFIG_NR_NODES_CHANGABLE (it is spelled "changeable", btw).
If the architecture wants to support changing of CONFIG_NR_NODES then it can permit CONFIG_NR_NODES to be changed in its Kconfig implementation.
If the architecture doesn't want to permit changing of CONFIG_NR_NODES then it should simply hardwire CONFIG_NR_NODES to the chosen value in its Kconfig.
So all architectures which use acpi_numa must implement CONFIG_NR_NODES.
In fact, it would probably make sense to require that all NUMA-supporting archtectures implement CONFIG_NR_NODES.
Also, we already have NODES_SHIFT defined in include/asm-*/numnodes.h. What's the relationship between that and CONFIG_NR_NODES? It seems that we want to derive NODES_SHIFT from CONFIG_NR_NODES.
Was ia64's CONFIG_IA64_NR_NODES the best choice? Should ia64 instead have made NODES_SHIFT Kconfigurable, and derived its max-nr_nodes from that?
It's all a bit of a pickle.
I guess for now a suitable approach would be to make all numa-using architectures define CONFIG_NR_NODES, and to leave that rather unpleasant-looking code in include/asm-ia64/numnodes.h as it is.
- 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/
| |