[RFC PATCH powerpc] make CONFIG_NUMA depends on CONFIG_SMP

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add this dependency to avoid
CONFI_NUMA && !CONFIG_SMP. 

I want to do this because I saw some build errors on next-tree when
compiling with CONFIG_SMP disabled, and it seems they are caused by some
codes under the CONFIG_NUMA #ifdefs.  

Signed-off-by: Li Zhong <redacted>
---
 arch/powerpc/Kconfig |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 050cb37..b2aa74b 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig

@@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ config IRQ_ALL_CPUS
 
 config NUMA
 	bool "NUMA support"
-	depends on PPC64
+	depends on PPC64 && SMP
 	default y if SMP && PPC_PSERIES
 
 config NODES_SHIFT

-- 
1.7.1

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:31:58PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add this dependency to avoid
CONFI_NUMA && !CONFIG_SMP. 

I want to do this because I saw some build errors on next-tree when
compiling with CONFIG_SMP disabled, and it seems they are caused by some
codes under the CONFIG_NUMA #ifdefs.  

This seems to make sense to me. Can you please repost with a better
changelog and a description of the actual build error you were seeing.

cheers

On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:31:58PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:

quoted

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add this dependency to avoid
CONFI_NUMA && !CONFIG_SMP. 

I want to do this because I saw some build errors on next-tree when
compiling with CONFIG_SMP disabled, and it seems they are caused by some
codes under the CONFIG_NUMA #ifdefs.  

This seems to make sense to me. Can you please repost with a better
changelog and a description of the actual build error you were seeing.

I tried it today, but didn't find any build errors any more, guess those
errors should have already been fixed. 

But it seems to me by disabling CONFIG_NUMA when CONFIG_SMP is disabled,
could at least prevent some unnecessary code being compiled into the
kernel. (After building a kernel with/without CONFIG_NUMA just now, it
seems that the vmlinux is ~100K smaller without CONFIG_NUMA).

I'm not sure whether this is still needed. 

Thanks, Zhong

cheers

On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 10:10 +0800, Li Zhong wrote:

On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 11:46 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 05:31:58PM +0800, Li Zhong wrote:

quoted

I'm not sure whether it makes sense to add this dependency to avoid
CONFI_NUMA && !CONFIG_SMP. 

I want to do this because I saw some build errors on next-tree when
compiling with CONFIG_SMP disabled, and it seems they are caused by some
codes under the CONFIG_NUMA #ifdefs.  

This seems to make sense to me. Can you please repost with a better
changelog and a description of the actual build error you were seeing.

I tried it today, but didn't find any build errors any more, guess those
errors should have already been fixed. 

But it seems to me by disabling CONFIG_NUMA when CONFIG_SMP is disabled,
could at least prevent some unnecessary code being compiled into the
kernel. (After building a kernel with/without CONFIG_NUMA just now, it
seems that the vmlinux is ~100K smaller without CONFIG_NUMA).

I'm not sure whether this is still needed. 

Yeah we'll leave your patch out. Unless someone cares deeply about the
size of the UP build, I think it's better to just leave them as separate
options.

cheers