Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:31:06 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] x86: make UV support optional |
| |
* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 January 2009 20:01:38 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 7 +++++++ > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/genapic.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/genapic_32.h | 7 ------- > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/genapic_64.h | 9 --------- > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/Makefile | 5 +++-- > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 2 ++ > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/genapic_64.c | 3 ++- > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/io_apic.c | 2 +- > > > > > 8 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > how about > > > > kernel/efi.c: efi.uv_systab = config_tables[i].table; > > > > ? > > > > > > Good point, I missed that. Will resend a patch with that ifdef'ed > > > tomorrow unless any serious objections are raised. > > > > Looks good to me, but please also extend the Makefile changes to > > kernel/tlb_uv.c, ./kernel/uv_sysfs.c, kernel/uv_irq.c, kernel/bios_uv.c - > > UV not just the genapic bits. Perhaps do it via gradual patches. > > Hmm, I think the Makefile changes should be there... the files you > reference AFAIKS are put under conditional compilation with my patch?
ah, indeed - i was looking at the diffstat and went "where's the mm/Makefile changes" ;-) So your patch is good as-is, as long as the thing Yinghai noticed is fixed.
Ingo
| |