On 27.09.2015 [23:59:11 +0530], Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Once we have made the distinction between nid and chipid
> create a 1:1 mapping between them. This makes compacting the
> nids easy later.
>
> No functionality change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index f84ed2f..dd2073b 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,17 @@ out:
> return chipid;
> }
>
> +
> + /* Return the nid from associativity */
> +static int associativity_to_nid(const __be32 *associativity)
> +{
> + int nid;
> +
> + nid = associativity_to_chipid(associativity);
> + return nid;
> +}
This is ultimately confusing. You are assigning the semantic return
value of a chipid to a nid -- is it a nid or a chipid? Shouldn't the
variable naming be consistent?
--
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/
