Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 00:33, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> 
>>Jesse Barnes wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:22:57PM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jesse had acked the patch in an earlier itteration.  The only thing 
>>>>that's changed is some line offsets whilst porting the patch forward.
>>>>
>>>>Jesse (or anyone else?), any objections to this patch as a superset of 
>>>>yours?
>>>
>>>
>>>No objections here.  Of course, you'll have to rediff against the
>>>current tree since that stuff has been merged for awhile now.  On a
>>>somewhat related note, Martin mentioned that he'd like to get rid of
>>>memblks.  I'm all for that too; they just seem to get in the way.
>>>
>>>Jesse
>>>
>>
>>Yeah... didn't actually attatch the patch to that last email, did I? 
>>Brain slowly transitioning back into "on" mode after a couple weeks 
>>solidly in the "off" position.
>>
> 
> 
> Get this with gcc-3.3.2 cvs:
> 
> --
> include/linux/mm.h: In function `page_nodenum':
> include/linux/mm.h:337: warning: right shift count >= width of type
> include/linux/mm.h:337: warning: suggest parentheses around + or -
> inside shift
> --
> 
> Think we could get those () in to make it more clear and the compiler
> happy?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 

Figured out what the right shift count message was about.  On UP with 
MAX_NODES_SHIFT = 0, the node bitfield has no length so the bitshift was 
too far.  Setting MAX_NODES_SHIFT = 1 gives the node bitfield a size of 
1, and we just store a 0 there for node 0.

Updated patch attatched.

Thanks!

-Matt