linux-kernel - Re: x86: WARNING: at mm/memblock.c:1339 memblock_set_node - Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO

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]

Message-ID: <e220910c-da6e-40ab-895f-87fd43c1de3f@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:48:46 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: x86: WARNING: at mm/memblock.c:1339 memblock_set_node - Usage of
 MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:46:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.06.2024 21:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:19:21PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >> The following kernel warnings are noticed on x86 devices while booting
> >> the Linux next-20240603 tag and looks like it is expected to warn users to
> >> use NUMA_NO_NODE instead.
> >>
> >> Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
> >>
> >> The following config is enabled
> >> CONFIG_NUMA=y
> > 
> > I am seeing this as well.  Is the following commit premature?
> > 
> > e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES")
> > 
> > Maybe old ACPI tables and device trees need to catch up?
> > 
> > Left to myself, I would simply remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() from the above
> > commit, but I would guess that there is a better way.
> 
> Well, the warning is issued precisely to make clear that call
> sites need to change. A patch to do so for the two instances
> on x86 that I'm aware of is already pending maintainer approval.

Could you please point me at that patch so that I can stop repeatedly
reproducing those two particular issues?

							Thanx, Paul