From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f199.google.com (mail-qk0-f199.google.com [209.85.220.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADAB6B0006 for ; Thu, 24 May 2018 05:04:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-f199.google.com with SMTP id b62-v6so682499qkj.6 for ; Thu, 24 May 2018 02:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com. [66.187.233.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c24-v6si9735616qtg.360.2018.05.24.02.04.45 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 24 May 2018 02:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv2 1/4] ACPI: NUMA: export pxm_to_node References: <20180523182404.11433-1-david@redhat.com> <20180523182404.11433-2-david@redhat.com> <5342a59c-4ca1-2cf5-a1d4-07a6d6f03587@redhat.com> <9cf4c5f3-f1ee-67c2-967e-07aa568685c4@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <173eaf59-0f48-c1d0-2317-840dcb932ba7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:04:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , ACPI Devel Maling List On 24.05.2018 11:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:54 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 24.05.2018 10:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:33 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 24.05.2018 10:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>> Will be needed by paravirtualized memory devices. >>>>> >>>>> That's a little information. >>>>> >>>>> It would be good to see the entire series at least. >>>> >>>> It's part of this series (guess you only received the cover letter and >>>> this patch). Here a link to the patch using it: >>>> >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/23/803 >>> >>> OK, thanks! >>> >>> It looks like you have a reason to use it in there, but please note >>> that CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA depends on CONFIG_NUMA, so you don't need to use >>> the latter directly in the #ifdef. Also wouldn't IS_ENABLED() work >>> there? >> >> Thanks for the tip on CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA. Wouldn't IS_ENABLED() require to >> have a dummy implementation of pxm_to_node() in case drivers/acpi/numa.c >> is not compiled? > > Yes, it would. > > But since you want export it, you can very well add one, can't you? > I'd even say that it would be prudent to do so. > Sure, can do that :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb