From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:32:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:32:33 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([212.34.181.86]:49675 "EHLO verein.lst.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 17:32:32 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:40:51 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: James Bottomley Cc: hch@lst.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove CONFIG_X86_NUMA Message-ID: <20021229234051.A12535@lst.de> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200212292239.gBTMdPJ12407@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200212292239.gBTMdPJ12407@localhost.localdomain>; from James.Bottomley@steeleye.com on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 04:39:25PM -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 04:39:25PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > > It's only used to hide two entries in arch/i386/Kconfig. > > The patch looks good. If it's OK to get rid of X86_NUMA, could you also move > X86_NUMAQ under the subarch menu? I already wondered about that, but AFAIK a kernel with X86_NUMAQ set still boots on a PeeCee, so it's really an option, not a choice.