* Laurent Dufour <lduf...@linux.ibm.com> [2021-08-23 11:21:33]:
> Le 21/08/2021 à 12:25, Srikar Dronamraju a écrit :
> > Currently, a debug message gets printed every time an attempt to
> > add(remove) a CPU. However this is redundant if the CPU is already added
> > (removed) from the node.
> >
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
> > Cc: Nathan Lynch <nath...@linux.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
> > Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schnei...@arm.com>
> > Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Geetika Moolchandani <geetika.moolchanda...@ibm.com>
> > Cc: Laurent Dufour <lduf...@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 11 +++++------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index f2bf98bdcea2..fbe03f6840e0 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -141,10 +141,11 @@ static void map_cpu_to_node(int cpu, int node)
> > {
> > update_numa_cpu_lookup_table(cpu, node);
> > - dbg("adding cpu %d to node %d\n", cpu, node);
> > - if (!(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node])))
> > + if (!(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]))) {
> > + dbg("adding cpu %d to node %d\n", cpu, node);
> > cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> > + }
> > }
> > #if defined(CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR)
> > @@ -152,13 +153,11 @@ static void unmap_cpu_from_node(unsigned long cpu)
> > {
> > int node = numa_cpu_lookup_table[cpu];
> > - dbg("removing cpu %lu from node %d\n", cpu, node);
> > -
> > if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node])) {
> > cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, node_to_cpumask_map[node]);
> > + dbg("removing cpu %lu from node %d\n", cpu, node);
> > } else {
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "WARNING: cpu %lu not found in node %d\n",
> > - cpu, node);
> > + pr_err("WARNING: cpu %lu not found in node %d\n", cpu, node);
>
> Would pr_warn() be more appropriate here (or removing the "WARNING"
> statement)?
Its a fair point.
Michael,
Do you want me to resend this patch with s/pr_err/pr_warn for the above
line?
>
> > }
> > }
> > #endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU || CONFIG_PPC_SPLPAR */
> >
>
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
