Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 13 May 2003 14:35:27 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.5.69-mm4 undefined active_load_balance |
| |
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 12:38:47PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Linus just committed a patch to eliminate such offenders. >> Do you mean #if CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS != 0 or #ifdef CONFIG_NR_SIBLINGS?
On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 11:31:10PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > 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.
Your fix was correct (the alternative is some rearrangment of those #defines) and I carried it out with some additional #ifdef -> #if conversions to cover the rest of the cases visible in my config and sent it to akpm in another patch.
-- wli - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |