Hi Vijay,
On 20/07/17 08:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
Hi Vijay,
On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Vijaya Kumar K <vijaya.ku...@cavium.com>
Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
Also drop unused macros and functions.
There is no functional change.
Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K <vijaya.ku...@cavium.com>
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>
---
v3: - Change commit message
- Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT
Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...
- Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros
[...]
diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
-#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
+#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
#define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1
#include <xen/cpumask.h>
+#define MAX_NUMNODES NR_NODES
+#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved away
in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.
Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
patch changes for compilation.
Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
asm/numa.h back.
I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
this patch.
Why adding a separate patch? The code should not have been moved away in
patch #1 as you did.
But I still don't understand what is the exact error here... If it fails
on this patch, likely this should have failed after applying patch #1.
And *all* patch should be able to build without the rest of the series.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
