[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:24:56 +0800
From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Robert Richter" <rrichter@...ium.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"Ganapatrao Kulkarni" <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] of/numa: fix a memory@ node can only contains one
memory block
On 2016/6/3 17:45, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 09:36:40AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>> On 2016/6/2 4:13, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> I believe you still need this and not the one above. You only need it
>>> within the loop if you return. Otherwise, the last node always need to
>>> be put.
>>
>> OK. Thanks.
>>
>> Addition with Matthias's suggestion, I will move "return" into this patch,
>> so that this of_node_put(np) can be safely removed.
>
> Do you want to include Kefeng's [1] patches in your series too? We don't
> need two sets of related NUMA cleanups :)
Yes, It's originally suggested by Joe Perches.
>
> Will
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-June/432715.html
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists