[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0910271404580.9183@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | +void __init acpi_numa_print_srat_mapping(void)
> | +{
> | + int i, j;
> | +
> | + for (i = 0; i < MAX_PXM_DOMAINS; i++) {
> | + int nid;
> | +
> | + nid = pxm_to_node(i);
> | + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>
> Btw, David, while you at it, I just curious -- shouldn't we test it
> with NID_INVAL (as pxm_to_node_map initially defined to)? Not a big
> deal at all (since they are both = -1) but for the record.
> Or perhaps I miss something?
>
I don't think we need to address that since NID_INVAL is going away and
will be replaced by NUMA_NO_NODE since Lee has exposed it globally in his
mempolicy patchset, and as you mention they are the same anyway.
--
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