On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 10:10 +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:31:58PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:
> > > I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add this dependency to avoid
> > > CONFI_NUMA && !CONFIG_SMP. 
> > > 
> > > I want to do this because I saw some build errors on next-tree when
> > > compiling with CONFIG_SMP disabled, and it seems they are caused by some
> > > codes under the CONFIG_NUMA #ifdefs.  
> > 
> > This seems to make sense to me. Can you please repost with a better
> > changelog and a description of the actual build error you were seeing.
> 
> I tried it today, but didn't find any build errors any more, guess those
> errors should have already been fixed. 
> 
> But it seems to me by disabling CONFIG_NUMA when CONFIG_SMP is disabled,
> could at least prevent some unnecessary code being compiled into the
> kernel. (After building a kernel with/without CONFIG_NUMA just now, it
> seems that the vmlinux is ~100K smaller without CONFIG_NUMA).
> 
> I'm not sure whether this is still needed. 

Yeah we'll leave your patch out. Unless someone cares deeply about the
size of the UP build, I think it's better to just leave them as separate
options.

cheers

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Reply via email to