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 wa
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
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 b
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.
Signed-off-by: Li Zho
