[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109100238110.17756@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 02:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, tj@...nel.org,
penberg@...nel.org, yinghai@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch/x86/mm/numa.c: quiet sparse noise when CONFIG_X86_64
is not set
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> index fbeaaf4..11c60a7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c
> @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ void __init numa_set_distance(int from, int to, int distance)
> numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to] = distance;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> int __node_distance(int from, int to)
> {
> if (from >= numa_distance_cnt || to >= numa_distance_cnt)
> @@ -462,6 +463,7 @@ int __node_distance(int from, int to)
> return numa_distance[from * numa_distance_cnt + to];
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__node_distance);
> +#endif
>
> /*
> * Sanity check to catch more bad NUMA configurations (they are amazingly
>
What is 64-bit specific about this function? Shouldn't we be defining it
to be node_distance for all of x86?
--
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