On Feb 19, 2008 2:55 PM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:42:48 -0800
>
> > On Tuesday 19 February 2008 03:41:10 am David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:21:46 +0100
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device *dev,
> > > > > unsigned int length, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - int node = dev->dev.parent ? dev_to_node(dev->dev.parent) :
> > > > > -1;
> > > > > + int node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
> > > >
> > > > i think this is a fix for the networking folks. (Dave Cc:-ed)
> > >
> > > It keeps getting NAK's because it's wrong.
> > >
> > > The author of the patch hasn't convinced folks why this is really
> > > necessary, and using the net_device embedded device struct is
> > > definitely wrong here. It doesn't contain the NUMA node information,
> > > the physical device does, and that is what the parent it.
> >
> > can you check the 5/8?
> > that will make sure every struct device get numa_node get assigned.
>
> Why do we need to bother with that if the parent will have the
> necessary information for us here?
less code?
or some kind of usb or other bus interface. may have several level...
YH
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
