Re: [Xen-devel] #undef CONFIG_NUMA

To:	Jimi Xenidis <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] #undef CONFIG_NUMA
From:	Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:14:53 +0000
Delivery-date:	Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:15:00 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<33773C02-3E8D-4452-A908-212401AE67D3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AccETHrxub8CEXA/Eduo+wANk04WTA==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] #undef CONFIG_NUMA
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620

On 9/11/06 9:29 pm, "Jimi Xenidis" <jimix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm turning it on in the PPC build even though I really don't want it
> yet.
> I don't believe Xen will build with undef CONFIG_NUMA, are we
> expecting it to?

Probably not, but you should be able to fake out the required
functions/macros pretty easily. It's mainly a case of keeping
coomon/page_alloc.c happy.

 -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] #undef CONFIG_NUMA