[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160125093429.GD24726@rric.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:34:29 +0100
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>
To: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
"Steve Capper" <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Hanjun Guo" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/12] arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk()
On 23.01.16 17:39:23, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> Rework numa_add_memblk() to update the parameter "u64 size"
> to "u64 end", this will make it consistent with x86 and
> can simplify the code later.
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c
> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ static int __init early_init_parse_memory_node(unsigned long node)
> pr_debug("NUMA-DT: base = %llx , node = %u\n",
> base, nid);
>
> - if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, size) < 0)
> + if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, base + size) < 0)
The overall function usage looks more like as it should use size
instead of end. Even in the x86 implementation end is calculated from
base + size. So better change x86 code to use size instead.
Though this might involve to change the interface for
numa_add_memblk_to() for unifcation too.
-Robert
Powered by blists - more mailing lists