On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:03:15PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <20030506050744.GA29352@in.ibm.com> you write:
> ..
> Doesn't break with sparce CPU #s, but yes, it is inefficient.
>
If you don't reduce NR_CPUS with CONFIG_NR_CPUS, you waste space (32 bit folks
won't like it) and if you say change CONFIG_NR_CPUS to 2,
and we have cpuid 4 on a 2 way you break right? If we have to address these
issues at all, why can't we use the simpler kmalloc_percpu patch
which I posted in the morning and avoid so much complexity and arch
dependency?
Thanks,
Kiran
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 07 2003 - 22:00:25 EST