Re: next-20090216: slqb

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 13:31 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 03:55:40AM +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >> FYI, on powerpc-64-smp-n-debug-n:
> >>
> >> mm/slqb.c: In function '__slab_free':
> >> mm/slqb.c:1648: error: implicit declaration of function 'slab_free_to_remote'
> >> mm/slqb.c: In function 'kmem_cache_open':
> >> mm/slqb.c:2174: error: implicit declaration of function 'kmem_cache_dyn_array_free'
> >> mm/slqb.c:2175: warning: label 'error_cpu_array' defined but not used
> >> mm/slqb.c: In function 'kmem_cache_destroy':
> >> mm/slqb.c:2294: error: implicit declaration of function 'claim_remote_free_list'
> >> mm/slqb.c: In function 'kmem_cache_reap_percpu':
> >> mm/slqb.c:2547: error: implicit declaration of function 'flush_remote_free_cache'
> >> mm/slqb.c: In function 'kmem_cache_init':
> >> mm/slqb.c:2783: error: 'per_cpu__kmem_cpu_nodes' undeclared (first use in this function)
> >> mm/slqb.c:2783: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> >> mm/slqb.c:2783: error: for each function it appears in.)
> >> mm/slqb.c:2784: error: 'kmem_cpu_cache' undeclared (first use in this function)
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> > Hmm, I guess this (SMP=n && NUMA=y) must be a valid config on ppc if
> > SLQB is the only one tripping on it, so I'll look at code to fix tihs
> > up.
> 
> It would be nice if one of the ppc devs confirmed this, though. Other
> architectures don't seem to support the combination.

I get a strong sense of deja-vu

                           Subject: 
next Feb 10: mm/slqb build break

FWIW, I don't think NUMA without SMP makes any kind of sense and the
arch Kconfig should be fixed.