From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1366356021.5684.3.camel@concordia> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP From: Michael Ellerman To: Li Zhong Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:20:21 +1000 In-Reply-To: <1366337453.3250.16.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> References: <1338370318.3637.12.camel@ThinkPad-T420> <20130418014559.GB8261@concordia> <1366337453.3250.16.camel@ThinkPad-T5421.cn.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: PowerPC email list , Paul Mackerras List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 10:10 +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:31:58PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote: > > > I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add this dependency to avoid > > > CONFI_NUMA && !CONFIG_SMP. > > > > > > I want to do this because I saw some build errors on next-tree when > > > compiling with CONFIG_SMP disabled, and it seems they are caused by some > > > codes under the CONFIG_NUMA #ifdefs. > > > > This seems to make sense to me. Can you please repost with a better > > changelog and a description of the actual build error you were seeing. > > I tried it today, but didn't find any build errors any more, guess those > errors should have already been fixed. > > But it seems to me by disabling CONFIG_NUMA when CONFIG_SMP is disabled, > could at least prevent some unnecessary code being compiled into the > kernel. (After building a kernel with/without CONFIG_NUMA just now, it > seems that the vmlinux is ~100K smaller without CONFIG_NUMA). > > I'm not sure whether this is still needed. Yeah we'll leave your patch out. Unless someone cares deeply about the size of the UP build, I think it's better to just leave them as separate options. cheers