>
> > Another reason I don't like it is that it's ugly and reimplements
> > parts of ACPI on its own for no reason.
>
> So shouldn't such a patch remove that code rather than panicing?
I would be for remove, but apparently we have one or two users in
IBM that run their x440s (32bit only) with CONFIG_NUMA. No distributions
do so though and I would expect x440s to usually run distributions
because they are quite expensive machines.
My arguments for remove:
- The code is very hackish - it was written before the proper ACPI
infrastructure is in place - and NUMA on 32bit in general needs a lot
of hacks because of the limited ZONE_NORMAL.
- NUMA on 32bit is kind of broken by design.
- It isn't used much.
- It breaks often
- It tends to not work on Opterons and hits the users who try it there.
Short of remove I would settle on the panic on non Summit.
Also if you only wanted NUMA emulation for testing it could be also
done much much simpler removing near all of i386/*/srat.c. But with
the inherent 32bit NUMA limitations I have my doubts on its great
usefulness.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
