Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261703AbTIPAew (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:34:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261706AbTIPAew (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:34:52 -0400 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.103]:31721 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261703AbTIPAes (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:34:48 -0400 Message-ID: <3F6659DF.1090508@us.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:31:27 -0700 From: Matthew Dobson Reply-To: colpatch@us.ibm.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jesse Barnes CC: "Martin J. Bligh" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, wli@holomorphy.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] you have how many nodes?? References: <20030910153601.36219ed8.akpm@osdl.org> <41000000.1063237600@flay> <20030911000303.GA20329@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2441 Lines: 66 Ok, I made an attempt to clean up this mess quite a while ago (2.5.47), but that patch is utterly useless now. At Martin's urging I've created a new series of patches to resolve this. 01 - Make sure MAX_NUMNODES is defined in one and only one place. Remove superfluous definitions. Instead of defining MAX_NUMNODES in asm/numnodes.h, we define NODES_SHIFT there. Then in linux/mmzone.h we turn that NODES_SHIFT value into MAX_NUMNODES. 02 - Remove MAX_NR_NODES. This value is only used in a couple of places, and it's incorrectly used in all those places as far as I can tell. Replace with MAX_NUMNODES. Create MAX_NODES_SHIFT and use this value to check NODES_SHIFT is appropriate. A possible future patch should make MAX_NODES_SHIFT vary based on 32 vs. 64 bit archs. 03 - Fix up the sh arch. sh defined NR_NODES, change sh to use standard MAX_NUMNODES instead. 04 - Fix up the arm arch. This needs to be reviewed. Relatively straightforward replacement of NR_NODES with standard MAX_NUMNODES. 05 - Fix up the ia64 arch. This *definitely* needs to be reviewed. This code made my head hurt. I think I may have gotten it right. Totally untested. Cheers! -Matt Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:46:40PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>Yes, it's a turgid mess. >> >>I'd prefer to define things in terms of MAX_NUMNODES, and derive the shifts >>from that if possible - much more intuitive to maintain. >>But other than that I agree completely with you. > > > Yeah, I don't mind switching, should just be a search and replace. > > >>>Could you please get together with Martin Bligh, come up with something >>>which works on NUMAQ and your 128 CPU PDA and also cast an eye across the >>>other architectures (sparc64, sh, ...)? It all needs a bit of thought and >>>a spring clean. >> >>I'll have a look, I'm sure we can come up with something between us. > > > Cool, thanks. > > Jesse > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/