Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.5.69-mm4 undefined active_load_balance

[Helge Hafting]

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:
> > --- 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