From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Alexander van Heukelum" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Make for_each_node_mask out-of-line Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:04:56 +0200 Message-ID: <1210593896.23716.1252664185@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20080511135039.GA3286@mailshack.com> <20080511091403.a75f5b78.pj@sgi.com> <20080511160658.GA3398@mailshack.com> <20080511160104.c3fef6bf.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:48564 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751726AbYELME5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 08:04:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080511160104.c3fef6bf.pj@sgi.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mike Travis , Paul Jackson Cc: Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexander van Heukelum On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:01:04 -0500, "Paul Jackson" said: > Alexander wrote: > > Sure. This patch introduces lib/nodemask.c, but I'm not quite sure > > if building it should depend on CONFIG_SMP or something else (NUMA?). > > When is MAX_NUMNODES 1? > > Well ... I'm pretty sure it made sense to depend on SMP, back when > it was first added. However that might have changed. I recall > vaguely that there has been discussion of this CONFIG_SMP dependency > every year or so, but I don't have the time right now to dig through > the archives and code to figure it out. > > So ... offhand ... good questions, but I don't have answers. > > > I'ld be happy to take a stab at aligning the cpumask and nodemask > > code even more by uninlining some more functions and using stubs > > for the MAX_NUMNODES=1 case. > > That could be good ... though could you co-ordinate with Mike Travis > first, to minimize the risks of merge conflicts with what he's doing? I believe the x86#testing tree includes Mike's work? The two patches in this thread apply fine to current x86#testing. > You kernel text space saving in the first patch seemed worth going > ahead with even if it did conflict a little, and I liked the matching > nodemask patch, just to keep things in sync. Other nodemask cleanup > is a little lower priority in my book, so should make a modest effort > to co-ordinate with more critical patches, to minimize conflict. Thanks for your guidance. Greetings, Alexander > -- > I won't rest till it's the best ... > Programmer, Linux Scalability > Paul Jackson 1.940.382.4214 -- Alexander van Heukelum heukelum@fastmail.fm -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web