From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:22:08 +0000 Subject: Re: Migo-R (SH7722) vs. NUMA Message-Id: <87vcmfmaun.fsf@schwinge.name> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" List-Id: References: <8762egpvhn.fsf@schwinge.name> In-Reply-To: <8762egpvhn.fsf@schwinge.name> To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 00:04:28 -0800, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > > I forgot detail of MIGO-R. > > > But in my quick check, > > > my MIGO-R .config doesn't have CONFIG_NUMA since around v2.6.32-rc5 > >=20 > > Hmm, where do you see/check that? > >=20 > > $ git blame -L /^CONFIG_NUMA/,+1 v3.2 -- arch/sh/configs/migor_defc= onfig=20 > > 70f784ec (Magnus Damm 2008-02-07 00:38:24 +0900 16) CONFIG_NUMA=3Dy >=20 > Ahh.. sorry for my confusion. > It was not migor_defconfig. > It is my local .config series which worked correctly on migo-r each linux= version :) > unfortunately (?) defconfig sometimes doesn't work... I'm not an expert on this, but here is what I think should be done: a) fix CONFIG_NUMA (apparently it used to work before the commit I referenced in my original email), or b) tag it as broken/unsupported and make sure it can't be enabled (and obviously don't enable it in the default configuration). Which of the two is it? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Thomas --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPWMCQAAoJENuKOtuXzphJBI0H/1hUDS644pQUaFaComC/QsxD kF7nRaIMUQc3dI+g6s8uJJqfFGZ46u9f1bX5jC1qI+VWdpRzcTocjQStokkFjGjX 8TewCFD83NceHaWLhskUxbuykzcgIUNSjq6sqtxnNZFiozvn2iUM5EP2X9n8BvvM mFeKV6cokSmL4oJhkYg5mwt6hJTciln81epIwlIxUpCXO48QHP8ch1crcN6Auq11 uoelBsqrJ0UKsKhnxrBXQ4AxdJuD5suxf/AaH1E+EY+S8NURIESfq4nElGU77VIX fQjXxaETP/vewqmxAW4QM3p6x8L/Km3UVbj6JCzMHkrITRAagu91uV3hD2XVyv4= =KnHV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--