From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sfi-mx-3.v28.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.28.123] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by 235xhf1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N6PF1-0003yS-U8 for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:52:39 +0000 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]) by 3b2kzd1.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1N6PEt-0003Ha-Mj for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:52:39 +0000 Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.247]) by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nA6DH0Ql032205 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:17:00 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nA6DE6e8606412 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:14:06 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nA6DHCQA003284 for ; Sat, 7 Nov 2009 00:17:13 +1100 Message-ID: <4AF4CA85.8050206@in.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 06:46:53 +0530 From: Sharyathi Nagesh MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4AEFF53D.1010908@in.ibm.com> <4AEFF972.3080405@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4AEFF972.3080405@cn.fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH][RFC]Testcases mbind01.c and get_mempolicy01 fails with EINVAL List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: liubo Cc: "Rishikesh K. Rajak" , ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net Liu Excuse me for the late response. I looked into Kconfig file and it looks that what you are saying is correct assessment. This is what Kconfig file under arch/x86 says --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- config MAXSMP bool "Configure Maximum number of SMP Processors and NUMA Nodes" depends on X86_64 && SMP && DEBUG_KERNEL && EXPERIMENTAL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So this value is changed only specific to x86_64 arch And check for ppc64 didn't reveal any modification to the MAX_NUMNODE value. As you put it reading this value from configure file appears to be a better idea Thanks Sharyathi On Tuesday 03 November 2009 03:05 PM, liubo wrote: >> int uninitialized_var(pval); >> nodemask_t nodes; >> >> if (nmask != NULL&& maxnode< MAX_NUMNODES) >> return -EINVAL; >> <== in the kernel code, >> MAX_NUMNODES comes to 512 > > Is it better that "MAX_NUMNODES" get from configure file? > > For different platforms may have different MAX_NUMNODES. > > > Regards-- > Liu Bo > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list