Hi Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> > Sent: 2021年8月28日 18:45 > To: Wei Chen <wei.c...@arm.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; > sstabell...@kernel.org > Cc: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marq...@arm.com> > Subject: Re: [XEN RFC PATCH 38/40] xen/arm: enable device tree based NUMA > in system init > > > > On 28/08/2021 04:17, Wei Chen wrote: > > Hi Julien, > > Hi Wei, > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org> > >> Sent: 2021年8月27日 22:33 > >> To: Wei Chen <wei.c...@arm.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; > >> sstabell...@kernel.org; jbeul...@suse.com > >> Cc: Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marq...@arm.com> > >> Subject: Re: [XEN RFC PATCH 38/40] xen/arm: enable device tree based > NUMA > >> in system init > >> > >> Hi Wei, > >> > >> On 11/08/2021 11:24, Wei Chen wrote: > >>> Everything is ready, we can remove the fake NUMA node and > >>> depends on device tree to create NUMA system. > >> > >> So you just added code a few patches before that are now completely > >> rewritten. Can you please re-order this series so it doesn't happen? > >> > >> This may mean that CONFIG_NUMA is only selected until late in this > series. > >> > > > > Why I did like this is because my original concerns are: > > 1. When I introduced the CONFIG_NUMA. Users will be using a code base on > > this commit by accident. > > 2. If users select CONFIG_NUMA, but not all NUMA data are not > initialized > > properly. The system may not work properly. > > We have to make sure we don't break any existing use case when writing a > new feature. However, a user should not expect a new feature to work it > is using a random commit in the middle of the series. > > This is also why I suggested that maybe CONFIG_NUMA is only selected for > Arm towards the end of the series. So you reduce the risk of someone > selecting it. >
Thanks for this clarification. > > 3. So I created the fake node to initialize the NUMA data, before we > parser > > real data from DTB. > > 4. In this case, user can work well with CONFIG_NUMA is enabled, without > > this series is completed. > > The flip side is you are adding more load on the reviewers because there > are extra code. The series is already quite big (40 patches), any way to > ease the review will definitely be appreciated. > > Another possible way to ease the review is to move the patch that > rework/move code at the beginning of the series and leave the Arm part > for the second part of the series. This way, we can start to merge the > series without waiting for the Arm bits to be completed. > Yes, I will try to re-order the patches in this way in next version. > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
