From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080821.001322.236658980.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] quicklist shouldn't be proportional to # of CPUs From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20080820234615.258a9c04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080820195021.12E7.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080820200709.12F0.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20080820234615.258a9c04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org From: Andrew Morton Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:46:15 -0700 Return-Path: To: akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, cl@linux-foundation.org, tokunaga.keiich@jp.fujitsu.com List-ID: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:13 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > + num_cpus_per_node = cpus_weight_nr(node_to_cpumask(node)); > > sparc64 allmodconfig: > > mm/quicklist.c: In function `max_pages': > mm/quicklist.c:44: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&' > > we seem to have a made a spectacular mess of cpumasks lately. It should explode similarly on x86, since it also defines node_to_cpumask() as an inline function. IA64 seems to be one of the few platforms to define this as a macro evaluating to the node-to-cpumask array entry, so it's clear what platform Motohiro-san did build testing on :-) -- 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