linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:00:43 +0000
From:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
Cc:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	"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>,
	Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@...aro.org>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT
 and SLIT

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 07:30:12PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

[...]

> >How about the following (similar to x86)?
> >
> >----
> >	if (!numa_off) {
> >#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> >		if (!numa_init(acpi_numa_init))
> >			return 0;
> >#endif
> >#ifdef CONFIG_OF_NUMA
> >		if (!numa_init(of_numa_init))
> >			return 0;
> >#endif
> >	}
> >
> >	return numa_init(dummy_numa_init);
> >----
> >
> >Pretty straight and nice.
> >
> >Note: The !acpi_disabled check needs to be moved to the beginning of
> >acpi_numa_init(). Variable ret can be removed.
> 
> Lorenzo suggested to remove it, Lorenzo, what's your opinion here?

I do not think it is a big deal. OF is not a fall-back for ACPI,
which is what the code above may make us think, either you parse
ACPI or you parse DT.

I will have a look at the complete code to check if we can rewrite
it differently but I would not be too worried about it.

Lorenzo