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:

On Tue, May 13, 2003 at 06:27:11PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:

quoted

--- 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>