Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error

[Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> 
> * Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
> >  	if (use_cyclone == 0) {
> >  		/* Make sure user sees something */
> > -		static const char s[] __initdata = "Not an IBM x440/NUMAQ. Don't use i386 CONFIG_NUMA anywhere else."
> > +		static const char s[] __initdata = "Not an IBM x440/NUMAQ. Don't use i386 CONFIG_NUMA anywhere else.";
> >  		early_printk(s);
> >  		panic(s);
> >  	}
> 
> i still strongly oppose the original Andi hack... numerous reasons were 
> given not to apply it (it's nice to simulate/trigger rarer features on 
> mainstream hardware too, and this ability to boot NUMA on my flat x86 
> testbox found at least one other NUMA bug already). Furthermore, the 
> crash i reported was fixed by the NUMA patchset.

I'll be darned.  I never knew it was even possible to run x86 numa kernels
on non-numa boxen.  I'd have tested about 1000000 of Christoph Lameter's
patches if someone had told me.  Yes, it's useful.

> Andrew, please drop:
> 
>   x86_64-mm-i386-numa-summit-check.patch

bang.

> (which has nothing to do with x86_64 anyway)

True.

I guess the concern here is that we don't want people building these
frankenkernels and then sending us bug reports against them.

So it is perhaps reasonable to do this panic, but only if !CONFIG_EMBEDDED? 
(It really is time to start renaming CONFIG_EMBEDDED to CONFIG_DONT_DO_THIS
or something).