On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote: > NUMA initialization will parse information from firmware provided > static resource affinity table (ACPI SRAT or DTB). bad_srat if a > function that will be used when initialization code encounters > some unexcepted errors. > > In this patch, we introduce Arm version bad_srat for NUMA common > initialization code to invoke it. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <[email protected]> > --- > xen/arch/arm/numa.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/numa.c b/xen/arch/arm/numa.c > index 3755b01ef4..5209d3de4d 100644 > --- a/xen/arch/arm/numa.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/numa.c > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ > * > */ > #include <xen/init.h> > +#include <xen/nodemask.h> > #include <xen/numa.h> > > static uint8_t __read_mostly > @@ -25,6 +26,12 @@ node_distance_map[MAX_NUMNODES][MAX_NUMNODES] = { > { 0 } > }; > > +__init void bad_srat(void) > +{ > + printk(KERN_ERR "NUMA: Firmware SRAT table not used.\n"); > + fw_numa = -1; > +}
I realize that the series keeps the "srat" terminology everywhere on DT too. I wonder if it is worth replacing srat with something like "numa_distance" everywhere as appropriate. I am adding the x86 maintainers for an opinion. If you guys prefer to keep srat (if nothing else, it is concise), I am also OK with keeping srat although it is not technically accurate.
