Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2003 23:31:10 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.5.69-mm4 undefined active_load_balance | From | Helge Hafting <> |
| |
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 12:38:47PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:27:11PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > > --- sched.h.orig 2003-05-13 15:45:17.000000000 +0200 > > +++ sched.h 2003-05-13 18:07:01.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -158,10 +158,8 @@ > > # define CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS 0 > > #endif > > -#ifdef CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS > > +#if CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS > > # define CONFIG_SHARE_RUNQUEUE 1 > > -#else > > -# define CONFIG_SHARE_RUNQUEUE 0 > > #endif > > extern void sched_map_runqueue(int cpu1, int cpu2); > > Linus just committed a patch to eliminate such offenders. > > Do you mean #if CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS != 0 or #ifdef CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS?
I don't know this code well, I'm just guessing the rigth way to make it compile. I don't know what's the "clean" way to do #if/#ifdefs either - I could probably do better if I knew.
The problem was that CONFIG_SHARE_RUNQUEUE gets set even with configs where it doesn't make sense, (i.e. uniprocessor without HT) so I guessed it was some sort of misunderstanding about how #ifdef works. I hope whoever wrote that code will take a look and either say "yes - that's what I meant" or fix it in a better way.
Helge Hafting
- 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/
| |