"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> I guess we should have here.
>
> modified arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -416,12 +416,11 @@ static int of_get_assoc_arrays(struct assoc_arrays
> *aa)
> static int of_drconf_to_nid_single(struct drmem_lmb *lmb)
> {
> struct assoc_arrays aa = { .arrays = NULL };
> - /* is that correct? */
> int default_nid = 0;
> int nid = default_nid;
> int rc, index;
>
> - if (!numa_enabled)
> + if ((min_common_depth < 0) || !numa_enabled)
> return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>
> rc = of_get_assoc_arrays(&aa);
>
>
> Nathan,
>
> Can you check this?
Looks like it would do the right thing.
Just checking: do people still need numa=off? Seems like it's a
maintenance burden :-)
