Olof Johansson wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 02:44:25AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > >> Comments are as always welcome! > > Care to explain what this is useful for? (Not saying it's a stupid idea, > just wondering what the reason for doing it is). >
In my case, I use it to test parts of my memory controller patches on an emulated NUMA machine. I plan to use it to test out page migration across nodes. >> diff -puN arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c~ppc-fake-numa-easy arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c >> --- linux-2.6.24-rc4-mm1/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c~ppc-fake-numa-easy >> 2007-12-07 21:25:55.000000000 +0530 >> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc4-mm1-balbir/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c 2007-12-08 >> 02:36:02.000000000 +0530 >> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ >> >> static int numa_enabled = 1; >> >> +char *cmdline __initdata; >> + > > Looks like this should be static. > Yes, good catch! >> @@ -702,6 +744,9 @@ static int __init early_numa(char *p) >> if (strstr(p, "debug")) >> numa_debug = 1; >> >> + if (strstr(p, "fake=")) >> + cmdline = p + 5; /* 5 is faster than strlen("fake=") */ > > This doesn't look right. > > You check if it contains fake=, not if it starts with it. So if someone > did: "numa=foo,fake=bar", or even "numa=debug,fake=", things wouldn't > work right. > Yes, you are right. I merely followed the strstr convention already present, which as you righly point out is wrong. I suspect I need to do something like p = strstr(p, "fake=") if (p) cmdline = p + 5; This would still allow us to do things like numa=foo,fake=bar but the memparse() utility would fail at fake=bar ^^^ or even numa=debug,fake=1G I suspect that this should be good enough for a command line option. > > -Olof -- Thanks, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev