[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120509154448.GD2653@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 17:44:51 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Ido Yariv <ido@...ery.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Shai Fultheim <shai@...lemp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vsmp: Fix number of CPUs when vsmp is disabled
* Ido Yariv <ido@...ery.com> wrote:
> +static void __init vsmp_cap_cpus(void)
> +{
> + void __iomem *address;
> + unsigned int cfg, topology, node_shift, maxcpus;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_VSMP
> + /* VSMP is enabled, no need to cap cpus */
> + return;
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> + /*
> + * CONFIG_X86_VSMP is not configured, so limit the number CPUs to the
I suspect this will throw compiler warnings in the
CONFIG_X86_VSMP && !CONFIG_SMP case.
Why not do something like:
static void __init vsmp_cap_cpus(void)
{
#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_VSMP) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
...
#endif
}
This keeps the #ifdef complexity reasonably concentrated.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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