From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:10:31 -0700 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 10/11] Shared Policy: per cpuset shared file policy control Message-Id: <20070625141031.904935b5.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070625195335.21210.82618.sendpatchset@localhost> References: <20070625195224.21210.89898.sendpatchset@localhost> <20070625195335.21210.82618.sendpatchset@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Lee Schermerhorn Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, nacc@us.ibm.com, ak@suse.de, clameter@sgi.com List-ID: Lee wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA Hmmm ... our very first ifdef CONFIG_NUMA in kernel/cpuset.c, and the second ifdef ever in that file. (And I doubt that the first ifdef, on CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG, is necessary.) How about we just remove these ifdef CONFIG_NUMA's, and let that per-cpuset 'shared_file_policy' always be present? It just won't do a heck of a lot on non-NUMA systems. No sense in breaking code that happens to access that file, just because we're running on a system where it's useless. It seems better to just simply, consistently, always have that file present. And I don't like ifdef's in kernel/cpuset.c. If necessary, put them in some header file, related to whatever piece of code has to shrink down to nothingness when not configured. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- 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