linux-kernel - Re: broken ACPI NUMA config option

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1189294395.13467.39.camel@Tachyon.home>
Date:	Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:33:15 -0400
From:	"James C. Georgas" <jgeorgas@...rgas.ca>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: broken ACPI NUMA config option

On Sat, 2007-08-09 at 18:51 -0400, James C. Georgas wrote:
> If I select X86_64_ACPI_NUMA, then ACPI_NUMA is (properly) selected
> automatically, but ACPI is not selected automatically. This causes
> ACPI_NUMA to not be built, and the kernel compile fails with unresolved
> symbols.
> 

Uh, it seems that I'm getting different results this time. Now,
X86_64_ACPI_NUMA does select ACPI, but PM (parent of ACPI) is not
automatically selected. Same result for the compile, though. Boom.

I seem to get different behaviour in general on subsequent runs of make
menuconfig.

For example, the last time I ran it, I was able to select K8_NUMA and
X86_64_ACPI_NUMA, independently of one another.

This time, though, the visibility of K8_NUMA is dependent on whether or
not X86_64_ACPI_NUMA is selected.

Should K8_NUMA and X86_64_ACPI_NUMA both be under NUMA, and independent
of one another?

James
	/\V

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/