CONFIG_NUMA and DISCONTIG inconsistencies

Dave Hansen haveblue at
Tue Mar 22 06:24:48 EST 2005

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 13:01 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Why are you removing the debug support under this patch?

It takes up valuable visual space in a header file where the #ifdefs are
already confusing.  It's also supposedly non-functional.  The developers
who get bugs for things like NUMA support also tend to have their own,
much more comprehensive patches to do the same kinds of things.

Basically, it got in my way when I wanted to make that file look better.

> If you want to
> remove it, please do it explicitly under a different patch.

I actually attached two plain-text patches in that message.  They were
separated when I attached them :)

> > -#ifdef DEBUG_NUMA
> > -#define ARRAY_INITIALISER -1
> > -#else
> > -#define ARRAY_INITIALISER 0
> > -#endif
> > -
> >  int numa_cpu_lookup_table[NR_CPUS] = { [ 0 ... (NR_CPUS - 1)] =
> How do you expect this to build if you remove ARRAY_INITIALISER?

Hehe.  Minor detail.  I think Joel is going to make a more presentable
(read: compiling) version.  I'm sure he'll get that part.

-- Dave

More information about the Linuxppc64-dev mailing list