"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 :-)

Reply via email to