On Wed, 2016-08-10 at 05:47 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 10.08.16 at 12:35, wrote:
> > I observe that CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is also unconditionally true, which
> > offers further cleanup opportunities (albeit it probably a separate
> > patch).
> So I thought, but then
>>> On 10.08.16 at 12:35, wrote:
> On 10/08/16 10:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> - drop the only left CONFIG_NUMA conditional (this is always true)
>
> I observe that CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is also unconditionally true, which
> offers further cleanup opportunities (albeit it
On 10/08/16 10:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> - drop the only left CONFIG_NUMA conditional (this is always true)
I observe that CONFIG_NUMA_EMU is also unconditionally true, which
offers further cleanup opportunities (albeit it probably a separate patch).
> - drop struct node_data's node_id field
- drop the only left CONFIG_NUMA conditional (this is always true)
- drop struct node_data's node_id field (being always equal to the
node_data[] array index used)
- don't open code node_{start,end}_pfn() nor node_spanned_pages()
except when used as lvalues (those could be converted too, but