On Sat, Sep 07, 2013 at 01:22:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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?
If we always had NR_CPUS defined, that might be a good way to go.
We would of course need acks from the various arch maintainers. I am
guessing that we are OK for m68k. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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/
