* [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP
@ 2012-05-30 9:31 Li Zhong
2013-04-18 1:46 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Li Zhong @ 2012-05-30 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: Paul Mackerras, PowerPC email list
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.
Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <zhong@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 050cb37..b2aa74b 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ config IRQ_ALL_CPUS
config NUMA
bool "NUMA support"
- depends on PPC64
+ depends on PPC64 && SMP
default y if SMP && PPC_PSERIES
config NODES_SHIFT
--
1.7.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP
2012-05-30 9:31 [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP Li Zhong
@ 2013-04-18 1:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-04-19 2:10 ` Li Zhong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2013-04-18 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Li Zhong; +Cc: PowerPC email list, Paul Mackerras
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.
cheers
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP
2013-04-18 1:46 ` Michael Ellerman
@ 2013-04-19 2:10 ` Li Zhong
2013-04-19 7:20 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Li Zhong @ 2013-04-19 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Ellerman; +Cc: PowerPC email list, Paul Mackerras
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.
Thanks, Zhong
>
> cheers
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP
2013-04-19 2:10 ` Li Zhong
@ 2013-04-19 7:20 ` Michael Ellerman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2013-04-19 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Li Zhong; +Cc: PowerPC email list, Paul Mackerras
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-04-19 7:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-05-30 9:31 [RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP Li Zhong
2013-04-18 1:46 ` Michael Ellerman
2013-04-19 2:10 ` Li Zhong
2013-04-19 7:20 ` Michael Ellerman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).