[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <574D543A.2090406@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 11:07:06 +0200
From: Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@...e.com>
To: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@...iumnetworks.com>,
Robert Richter <rrichter@...ium.com>,
David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@...wei.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>,
Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be
printed
On 28/05/16 11:22, Zhen Lei wrote:
> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
> testing branch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
> ---
Which kernel version is this patch based on?
Regards,
Matthias
> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/of/of_numa.c | 7 +++----
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> ret = numa_register_nodes();
> if (ret < 0)
> @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
>
> if (numa_off)
> pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
> - else
> - pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
> pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
> 0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> index fb62307..3157130 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c
> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
> struct device_node *np = NULL;
> struct resource rsrc;
> u32 nid;
> - int i, r = 0;
> + int i, r;
>
> for_each_node_by_type(np, "memory") {
> r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid);
> @@ -81,12 +81,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void)
> if (!i || r) {
> of_node_put(np);
> pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n");
> - r = r ? : -EINVAL;
> - break;
> + return r ? : -EINVAL;
> }
> }
>
> - return r;
> + return 0;
> }
>
Well this is fixing changes you introduced in this patch-set. Any reason
this is not part of patch 2?
> static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
> --
> 2.5.0
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists