[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZBneELQuakjva1xa@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 16:40:48 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab: Fix undefined init_cache_node_node() for NUMA
and !SMP
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 09:30:59AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> -#if (defined(CONFIG_NUMA) && defined(CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG)) || defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_NUMA) || defined(CONFIG_SMP)
I'm amused by the thought of CONFIG_NUMA without CONFIG_SMP.
Is it possible to have one node with memory and a single CPU, then
another node with memory and no CPU?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists