[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080219.145512.142721224.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:55:12 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: Yinghai.Lu@....COM
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, greg@...ah.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jeff@...zik.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] net: use numa_node in net_devcice->dev instead of
parent
From: Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@....COM>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:42:48 -0800
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 03:41:10 am David Miller wrote:
> > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:21:46 +0100
> >
> > >
> > > * Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@....COM> wrote:
> > >
> > > > struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device *dev,
> > > > unsigned int length, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > > {
> > > > - int node = dev->dev.parent ? dev_to_node(dev->dev.parent) : -1;
> > > > + int node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
> > >
> > > i think this is a fix for the networking folks. (Dave Cc:-ed)
> >
> > It keeps getting NAK's because it's wrong.
> >
> > The author of the patch hasn't convinced folks why this is really
> > necessary, and using the net_device embedded device struct is
> > definitely wrong here. It doesn't contain the NUMA node information,
> > the physical device does, and that is what the parent it.
>
> can you check the 5/8?
> that will make sure every struct device get numa_node get assigned.
Why do we need to bother with that if the parent will have the
necessary information for us here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists