Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error

Andy Whitcroft
2006-05-15T18:09:30Z

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
>>
>>* Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> if (use_cyclone == 0) {
>>> /* Make sure user sees something */
>>>- static const char s[] __initdata = "Not an IBM x440/NUMAQ. Don't use i386 CONFIG_NUMA anywhere else."
>>>+ static const char s[] __initdata = "Not an IBM x440/NUMAQ. Don't use i386 CONFIG_NUMA anywhere else.";
>>> early_printk(s);
>>> panic(s);
>>> }
>>
>>i still strongly oppose the original Andi hack... numerous reasons were
>>given not to apply it (it's nice to simulate/trigger rarer features on
>>mainstream hardware too, and this ability to boot NUMA on my flat x86
>>testbox found at least one other NUMA bug already). Furthermore, the
>>crash i reported was fixed by the NUMA patchset.
>
>
> I'll be darned. I never knew it was even possible to run x86 numa kernels
> on non-numa boxen. I'd have tested about 1000000 of Christoph Lameter's
> patches if someone had told me. Yes, it's useful.
>

We always assumed it might be reasonable for a distro to want a single
installer kernel for all machines. So having a combined numa not numa
capable kernel always seemed like a good idea.

>>Andrew, please drop:
>>
>> x86_64-mm-i386-numa-summit-check.patch
>
>
> bang.
>
>
>>(which has nothing to do with x86_64 anyway)
>
>
> True.
>
> I guess the concern here is that we don't want people building these
> frankenkernels and then sending us bug reports against them.
>
> So it is perhaps reasonable to do this panic, but only if !CONFIG_EMBEDDED?
> (It really is time to start renaming CONFIG_EMBEDDED to CONFIG_DONT_DO_THIS
> or something).

How about CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL?

-apw