Re: [Patch:001/004]Unify pxm_to_node id ver.3.(generic code)

[Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> Yasunori Goto <y-goto@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > +/* Proximity bitmap length */
> >  +#ifdef CONFIG_NR_NODES_CHANGABLE
> >  +#define MAX_PXM_DOMAINS CONFIG_NR_NODES
> >  +#else
> >  +#define MAX_PXM_DOMAINS (256)
> >  +#endif
> 
> I don't think we need CONFIG_NR_NODES_CHANGABLE (it is spelled
> "changeable", btw).
> 
> If the architecture wants to support changing of CONFIG_NR_NODES then it
> can permit CONFIG_NR_NODES to be changed in its Kconfig implementation.
> 
> If the architecture doesn't want to permit changing of CONFIG_NR_NODES
> then it should simply hardwire CONFIG_NR_NODES to the chosen value in
> its Kconfig.
> 
> So all architectures which use acpi_numa must implement CONFIG_NR_NODES.
> 
> In fact, it would probably make sense to require that all NUMA-supporting
> archtectures implement CONFIG_NR_NODES.
> 
> Also, we already have NODES_SHIFT defined in include/asm-*/numnodes.h. 
> What's the relationship between that and CONFIG_NR_NODES?  It seems that we
> want to derive NODES_SHIFT from CONFIG_NR_NODES.
> 
> Was ia64's CONFIG_IA64_NR_NODES the best choice?  Should ia64 instead have
> made NODES_SHIFT Kconfigurable, and derived its max-nr_nodes from that?
> 
> It's all a bit of a pickle.
> 
> 
> I guess for now a suitable approach would be to make all numa-using
> architectures define CONFIG_NR_NODES, and to leave that rather
> unpleasant-looking code in include/asm-ia64/numnodes.h as it is.
> 

Ahhh.
I understand what you wish at last.

I thought relationship between pxm and nid is just acpi-using
architecture's issue.
But, it becomes for all numa-using architecture's issue.

Ok. I'll change it.

Thanks.

-- 
Yasunori Goto