[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A8619B.9010602@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:20:11 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.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 2016/1/25 17:34, Robert Richter wrote:
> 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.
>
This should be a minor one, I'm fine with both directions, I will
stay for a few days to get more review comments, if no objections,
I will update.
Thanks
Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists