On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> + pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use
> NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n",
> + __func__);
Why not just use WARN_ONCE()? We'd want to know who the caller is
anyway. Also, wouldn't something like the following simpler?
if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, blah blah))
nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> @@ -768,6 +773,11 @@ void __init_memblock __next_free_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx,
> int nid,
> struct memblock_type *rsv = &memblock.reserved;
> int mi = *idx & 0xffffffff;
> int ri = *idx >> 32;
> + bool check_node = (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (nid != MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> + pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use
> NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n",
> + __func__);
Ditto.
Provided the patch is tested on an actual NUMA setup.
Reviwed-by: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
