From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:15:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [1/3] Add __GFP_THISNODE to avoid fallback to other nodes and ignore cpuset/memory policy restrictions. Message-Id: <20060811121540.2253cae7.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20060810124137.6da0fdef.akpm@osdl.org> <20060811110821.51096659.akpm@osdl.org> <20060811114243.49fa4390.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, pj@sgi.com, jes@sgi.com, Andy Whitcroft List-ID: On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > How about we do > > > > /* > > * We do this to avoid lots of ifdefs and their consequential conditional > > * compilation > > */ > > #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA > > #define NUMA_BUILD 1 > > #else > > #define NUMA_BUILD 0 > > #endif > > Put this in kernel.h? spose so. > Sounds good but this sets a new precedent on how to avoid #ifdefs. It does, a bit. I'm not aware of any downside to it, really. I got dinged by Linus maybe five years back for this sort of thing. He muttered something about it defeating checkconfig or configcheck or some similar thing which probably doesn't exist now. Perhaps there is a downside. But one could argue that NUMA is a special-case. Let's try it in a couple of places, see how it goes? -- 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