[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100311140623.GA9346@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:06:23 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: increase CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT max to 10
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:23:54PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > Some larger systems require more than 512 nodes, so increase the maximum
> > CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT to 10 for a new max of 1024 nodes.
> >
> > This was tested with numa=fake=64M on systems with more than 64GB of RAM. A
> > total of 1022 nodes were initialized.
> >
> > Successfully builds with no additional warnings on x86_64 allyesconfig.
>
> Not so here:
>
> drivers/base/node.c:169: error: negative width in bit-field ?<anonymous>?
>
> > Greg KH has queued up numa-fix-BUILD_BUG_ON-for-node_read_distance.patch
> > for 2.6.35 to fix the build error when CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT is set to 10.
> > See http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/10/390
Well, it will be a few days before I queue it up...
> erm. Alas I cannot merge it in the x86 tree without that fix being upstream.
> Why for v2.6.35 - shouldnt that be v2.6.34?
If it needs to go in before .35, or it should go through Ingo's trees, I
have no objection.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists