Re: [PATCH] populated_map: fix !NUMA case, remove comment

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

On 11.06.2007 [18:45:55 -0700], Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> 
> > Ah, but we'll use it in mpol_new via nodes_and() regardless of
> > NUMA/!NUMA, right?
> 
> mempolicy.c will only be compiled for the NUMA case.
> 
> > If you really feel that only CONFIG_NUMA code should use
> > node_populated_mask, then I'll make that change and use
> > node_populated() in the callers.
> 
> What point would there be of !NUMA configurations using
> node_populated_mask()?

I really don't get this inconsistency...why do we export node_online_map
and node_possible_map in !NUMA configurations, then?

Note, node_online_mask is used currently in hugetlb.c to achieve
"interleaving" of fresh hugepages. And has no dependency on NUMA to be
compiled or not.

Thanks,
Nish

-- 
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>