Re: [PATCH] fix for-loop in sn_hwperf_geoid_to_cnode()

From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas_at_hp.com>
Date: 2006-03-09 10:55:45
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 15:02, Dean Roe wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 10:35:19AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > On Monday 06 March 2006 09:32, Dean Roe wrote:
> > > -	for_each_node(cnode) {
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * FIXME: replace with cleaner for_each_XXX macro which addresses
> > > +	 * both compute and IO nodes once ACPI3.0 is available.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	for (cnode = 0; cnode < num_cnodes; cnode++) {
> > 
> > I don't understand this ACPI 3.0 dependency.  Can't you just define
> > for_each_XXX() the way you want it, and fill in the bitmask or whatever
> > it uses either (a) using ACPI 3.0 data, or (b) some interim hack?
> > 
> > Bjorn
> 
> I can't really tell from your response, so...did you see Jack's explanation
> of this?
>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m=114141537904761&w=2
> 
> Are you saying you *really* want a for_each_sn_cnode() macro?  I guess
> we can go that route if necessary...I just prefer the one-line change
> rather than changing 4-5 files when we aren't really sure yet what the
> final implementation will look like.

I saw his response, but it wasn't clear to me what ACPI 3.0 is going
to solve.  Are you saying that with ACPI 3.0, you will be able to
use for_each_node()?

If that's the case, my question is, why can't you use for_each_node()
today, and use some interim hack to fill in node_possible_map?

If not, what "for_each_XXX" macro are you planning to use when
you have ACPI 3.0?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Mar 09 10:56:29 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-03-09 10:56:38 EST