Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v2 24/25] NUMA: Move CONFIG_NUMA to common Kconfig

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Vijay,

On 15/06/17 08:52, Vijay Kilari wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On 31.05.17 at 12:18, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 31/05/17 11:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > On 28.03.17 at 17:53, <vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > --- a/xen/common/Kconfig
> > > > > +++ b/xen/common/Kconfig
> > > > > @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ config HAS_GDBSX
> > > > >  config HAS_IOPORTS
> > > > >     bool
> > > > >
> > > > > +config NUMA
> > > > > +   def_bool y
> > > > > +   depends on HAS_PDX
> > > > What makes necessary this dependency?
> > > IIRC, this is because the numa code is using PDX helpers.
> > Well, these helpers should have 1:1 translation equivalents for
> > the non-PDX case; I don't see the need for the dependency.
> PDX is necessary. Without that xen fails to compile for ARM.
> IMO, there is no equivalent non-PDX support available.
I am well aware that ARM requires PDX... This is because, all the memory 
is not contiguous on ARM and we don't want to waste space in the frametable.
But this is not the point of the discussion. A new architecture may 
decide that PDX is not necessary but still want to use NUMA. Hence why 
Jan suggested 1:1 helpers for the non-PDX case.
> As it is mandatory config, I propose to remove this dependency with
> NUMA config. ok?
This is what Jan suggested and I am happy with that.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel