On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, liguang wrote:

> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>

Because there's no changelog, I have to read the patch to figure out what 
it's doing since the title isn't that helpful either.  Please provide a 
description of what problem you're trying to fix or what improvement 
you're trying to make so it's clear.

> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/srat.c  |    6 ------
>  drivers/acpi/numa.c |    2 ++
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> index a837c95..78c67bd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ acpi_numa_x2apic_affinity_init(struct 
> acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity *pa)
>       int pxm, node;
>       int apic_id;
>  
> -     if (srat_disabled())
> -             return;
>       if (pa->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity)) {
>               bad_srat();
>               return;
> @@ -100,8 +98,6 @@ acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init(struct 
> acpi_srat_cpu_affinity *pa)
>       int pxm, node;
>       int apic_id;
>  
> -     if (srat_disabled())
> -             return;
>       if (pa->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_cpu_affinity)) {
>               bad_srat();
>               return;
> @@ -148,8 +144,6 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct 
> acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
>       u64 start, end;
>       int node, pxm;
>  
> -     if (srat_disabled())
> -             return -1;
>       if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
>               bad_srat();
>               return -1;
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> index cb31298..1f51222 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> @@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_srat(struct 
> acpi_table_header *table)
>       struct acpi_table_srat *srat;
>       if (!table)
>               return -EINVAL;
> +     if (srat_disabled())
> +             return -EACCES;
>  
>       srat = (struct acpi_table_srat *)table;
>       acpi_srat_revision = srat->header.revision;

Nack, this isn't helpful since SRAT is only for x86 and other 
architectures use this code.  It would break the build on ia64 since it's 
obviously not going to have a function called srat_disabled().

And -EACCES would not be the appropriate return value, this has nothing to 
do with permissions.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to