Re: [RFC/PATCH] unregister_node() for hotplug use

[Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>]

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.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

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.

-Matt