From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD29C432C0 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A3C20881 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727521AbfLBQBN (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:64142 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727418AbfLBQBN (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:01:13 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098414.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xB2Fuuu6081801 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:01:11 -0500 Received: from e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.101]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2wm6c0j0y1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:01:11 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:09 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.197) by e06smtp05.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:06 -0000 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id xB2G15UB51249366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:05 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F3D4203F; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 868BF42041; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.ibm.com (unknown [9.148.8.152]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:01:04 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:01:02 +0200 From: Mike Rapoport To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Kars de Jong , Randy Dunlap , linux-m68k , LKML Subject: Re: m68k Kconfig warning References: <021330b6-67a2-0b74-c129-5c725dd23810@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19120216-0020-0000-0000-000003927D5A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19120216-0021-0000-0000-000021E99982 Message-Id: <20191202160101.GB17203@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-12-02_03:2019-11-29,2019-12-02 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1912020141 Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 02:32:28PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Kars,. > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kars de Jong wrote: > > Op wo 27 nov. 2019 om 08:12 schreef Geert Uytterhoeven : > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 2:27 AM Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > Just noticed this. I don't know what the right fix is. > > > > Would you take care of it, please? > > > > > > > > on Linux 5.4, m68k allmodconfig: > > > > > > > > WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES > > > > Depends on [n]: DISCONTIGMEM [=n] || NUMA > > > > Selected by [y]: > > > > - SINGLE_MEMORY_CHUNK [=y] && MMU [=y] > > > > > > This has been basically there forever, but working. > > > > The reason for SINGLE_MEMORY_CHUNK depending on NEED_MULTIPLE_NODES is > > historic due to the way it is implemented. > > I played with it this weekend and I got a working version of FLATMEM, > > which can replace SINGLE_MEMORY_CHUNK. > > Nice, thanks! > > > step might be to replace DISCONTIGMEM with SPARSEMEM (since > > DISCONTIGMEM has been deprecated). > > Mike Rapoport has patches for that: > "[PATCH v2 0/3] m68k/mm: switch from DISCONTIGMEM to SPARSEMEM" > > Unfortunately they're not on lore, and there were some issues with them. The patches are here: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-m68k/msg13588.html Aside from some technicalities we had troubles deciding what should be the section size. With larger section size we might end up with wasted memory for memory maps and with smaller section size we'll have to limit the addressable physical memory... > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds -- Sincerely yours, Mike.