在 2013-02-04一的 11:41 -0800，David Rientjes写道：
> 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.
Yes, you're right, will drop this change.
--
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/
