Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/6/3 17:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:28:11AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
>> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
>> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
>> testing branch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> Looks fine to me, but this doesn't apply against -rc1.

Oh,

These patched based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679 series.

> 
> Will
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>>  if (ret < 0)
>>  return ret;
>>
>> -if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
>> +if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
>> +pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>>  return -EINVAL;
>> +}
>>
>>  ret = numa_register_nodes();
>>  if (ret < 0)
>> @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
>>
>>  if (numa_off)
>>  pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
>> -else
>> -pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>>  pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
>> 0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
>>
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>>
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:28:11AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
> testing branch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Looks fine to me, but this doesn't apply against -rc1.

Will

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>   if (ret < 0)
>   return ret;
> 
> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>   return -EINVAL;
> + }
> 
>   ret = numa_register_nodes();
>   if (ret < 0)
> @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> 
>   if (numa_off)
>   pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
> - else
> - pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>   pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
>  0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
> 
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
> 

[PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Zhen Lei]

numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
testing branch.

Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei 
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
if (ret < 0)
return ret;

-   if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
+   if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
+   pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
return -EINVAL;
+   }

ret = numa_register_nodes();
if (ret < 0)
@@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

if (numa_off)
pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-   else
-   pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
   0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--
2.5.0