Message-ID: <4FAA938A.1030003@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 08:55:54 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CC: Ido Yariv <ido@wizery.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Shai Fultheim <shai@scalemp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vsmp: Fix number of CPUs when vsmp is disabled
References: <20120509082225.GB5036@NoteStation.colubris.lan> <1336552121-6742-1-git-send-email-ido@wizery.com> <20120509154448.GD2653@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120509154448.GD2653@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1009
Lines: 34

On 05/09/2012 08:44 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Ido Yariv <ido@wizery.com> wrote:
> 
>> +static void __init vsmp_cap_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> +	void __iomem *address;
>> +	unsigned int cfg, topology, node_shift, maxcpus;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_VSMP
>> +	/* VSMP is enabled, no need to cap cpus */
>> +	return;
>> +#elif defined(CONFIG_SMP)
>> +	/*
>> +	 * CONFIG_X86_VSMP is not configured, so limit the number CPUs to the
> 
> I suspect this will throw compiler warnings in the 
> CONFIG_X86_VSMP && !CONFIG_SMP case.
> 

What on Earth is the point of allowing that combination?  Why not make
X86_VSMP depend on SMP and reduce the testing matrix?

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/