From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot0-f199.google.com (mail-ot0-f199.google.com [74.125.82.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979B96B0005 for ; Thu, 24 May 2018 05:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ot0-f199.google.com with SMTP id q4-v6so557485ote.6 for ; Thu, 24 May 2018 02:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id e6-v6sor9750020oiy.85.2018.05.24.02.01.03 for (Google Transport Security); Thu, 24 May 2018 02:01:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9cf4c5f3-f1ee-67c2-967e-07aa568685c4@redhat.com> 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: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:01:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFCv2 1/4] ACPI: NUMA: export pxm_to_node Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , ACPI Devel Maling List 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.