From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010E46B0047 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 09:13:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/8] numa: prep: move generic percpu interface definitions to percpu-defs.h From: Lee Schermerhorn In-Reply-To: <4B960AD0.8010709@kernel.org> References: <20100304170654.10606.32225.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <20100304170702.10606.85808.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <4B960AD0.8010709@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:13:29 -0500 Message-Id: <1268144009.27921.9.camel@useless.americas.hpqcorp.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Andi Kleen , Christoph Lameter , Nick Piggin , David Rientjes , akpm@linux-foundation.org, eric.whitney@hp.com List-ID: On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:46 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On 03/05/2010 02:07 AM, Lee Schermerhorn wrote: > > To use the generic percpu infrastructure for the numa_node_id() interface, > > defined in linux/topology.h, we need to break the circular header dependency > > that results from including in . The > > circular dependency: > > > > percpu.h -> slab.h -> gfp.h -> topology.h > > > > percpu.h includes slab.h to obtain the definition of kzalloc()/kfree() for > > inlining __alloc_percpu() and free_percpu() in !SMP configurations. One could > > un-inline these functions in the !SMP case, but a large number of files depend > > on percpu.h to include slab.h. Tejun Heo suggested moving the definitions to > > percpu-defs.h and requested that this be separated from the remainder of the > > generic percpu numa_node_id() preparation patch. > > Hmmm... I think uninlining !SMP case would be much cleaner. Sorry > that you had to do it twice. I'll break the dependency in the percpu > devel branch and let you know. OK, I'll do that for V4. It'll be one big ugly patch because of all the dependencies. But, it's really just a mechanical change. > > For other patches, except for what Christoph has already pointed out, > everything looks good to me. > > Thank you. > Thank you for the review. Regards, Lee -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org