On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >>> Furthermore, it seems only hexagon, metag, mips, and x86 set NR_CPUS to 1 >>> if !SMP. On other architectures, NR_CPUS is not defined and presumed to be >>> 0. >> >> Would it make sense to require that NR_CPUS=1 for !SMP? > > Yes, this looks reasonable to me.
Perhaps we can invert the logic and define only NR_CPUS in arch-specific code, and derive SMP from NR_CPUS != 1 in generic code? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/