[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718105953.GA9149@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:03:39 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>
Cc: kirill@...temov.name, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
hpa@...or.com, tj@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] x86/numa_emulation: refine the calculation of
max_emu_nid and dfl_phys_nid
On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:30:57AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> max_emu_nid and dfl_phys_nid is calculated from emu_nid_to_phys[], which is
> calculated in split_nodes_xxx_interleave(). From the logic in these
$ git grep split_nodes_xxx_interleave
$
> functions, it is assured the emu_nid_to_phys[] has meaningful value if it
> return successfully and ensures dfl_phys_nid will get a valid value.
>
> This patch removes the error branch to check invalid dfl_phys_nid and
So the check doesn't hurt anyone.
On the contrary - it is an "assertion" of sorts in otherwise complex
code and actually documents the fact that by then emu_nid_to_phys[]
needs to be setup properly.
And it is especially useful if someone decides to change that code in
the future, for whatever reason, and gets to hit that check - it'll even
be helpful in that case.
So I'd vote for keeping that check and not doing anything.
While we're at it, never say "this patch" in a commit message - that is
tautologically obvious.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists