On 20.09.2022 11:12, Wei Chen wrote:
> +static bool __init nodes_cover_memory(void)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for ( i = 0; ; i++ )
> + {
> + int err;
> + bool found;
> + unsigned int j;
> + paddr_t start, end;
> +
> + /* Try to loop memory map from index 0 to end to get RAM ranges. */
> + err = arch_get_ram_range(i, &start, &end);
> +
> + /* Reached the end of the memory map? */
> + if ( err == -ENOENT )
> + break;
> +
> + /* Skip non-RAM entries. */
> + if ( err )
> + continue;
> +
> + do {
> + found = false;
> + for_each_node_mask ( j, memory_nodes_parsed )
> + if ( start < nodes[j].end
> + && end > nodes[j].start )
Nit: Style (placement of && and indentation). Does this actually need
splitting across two lines?
> --- a/xen/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> +++ b/xen/drivers/acpi/Kconfig
> @@ -7,4 +7,5 @@ config ACPI_LEGACY_TABLES_LOOKUP
>
> config ACPI_NUMA
> bool
> + select HAS_NUMA_NODE_FWID
> select NUMA
While I might guess that you've chosen the insertion point to have
things sorted alphabetically, I think here it would be more natural
to select the wider option first and then also select the more
narrow one.
One further question though: How is this going to work for Arm64
once it wants to support both the form of NUMA you're working to
enable _and_ ACPI-based NUMA? There better wouldn't be a requirement
to pick one of the two at build time - it would be nice for support
of both forms to be able to co-exist in a single binary.
Jan
