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
