Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-20 Thread Julien Grall 


On 20/07/17 13:29, Vijay Kilari wrote:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:

But still compilation issue comes from below code.
where only asm/numa.h is included.

--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/irq.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/irq.h
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 /* (C) 1992, 1993 Linus Torvalds, (C) 1997 Ingo Molnar */

 #include 
-#include 
+#include 
 #include 
 #include 
 #include 


Send a patch to fix that then.

Cheers,
--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-20 Thread Vijay Kilari 
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:
>
>
> On 20/07/17 13:05, Vijay Kilari wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Julien Grall 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vijay,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/07/17 08:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:


 On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall 
 wrote:
>
>
> Hi Vijay,
>
> On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Vijaya Kumar K 
>>
>> Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
>> Also drop unused macros and functions.
>> There is no functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
>> Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
>> ---
>> v3: - Change commit message
>> - Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT
>
>
>
>
> Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...
>
>> - Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros
>
>
>
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
>> index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
>> @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
>> -#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
>> +#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
>>  #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1
>>
>>  #include 
>>
>> +#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
>> +#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
>
>
>
>
> I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved
> away
> in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.



 Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
 patch changes for compilation.
 Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
 asm/numa.h back.

 I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
 this patch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why adding a separate patch? The code should not have been moved away in
>>> patch #1 as you did.
>>
>>
>> In patch#1 , I have not moved MAX_NUMNODES. It is kept in xen/numa.h file
>> In this patch, when VIRTUAL_BUG_ON is changed to ASSERT, in
>> asm-x86/numa.h,
>> it requires MAX_NUMNODES define. So I have moved it from xen/numa.h to
>> asm-x86/numa.h
>
>
> I am sorry but looked at your patch #1. You moved NR_NODE_MEMBLKS in patch
> #1 from asm-x86/numa.h to xen/numa.h. And then you moved it again here.
>
>>
>> So, I was thinking of  adding small patch to move both MAX_NUMNODES and
>> NR_NODE_MEMBLKS to asm-x86/numa.h
>
>
> Or better, you can do in xen/numa.h:
>
> #define MAX_NUMNODES ...
> #define NR_NODE_...
>
> #include 

But still compilation issue comes from below code.
where only asm/numa.h is included.

--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/irq.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/irq.h
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 /* (C) 1992, 1993 Linus Torvalds, (C) 1997 Ingo Molnar */

 #include 
-#include 
+#include 
 #include 
 #include 
 #include 

>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-20 Thread Julien Grall 



On 20/07/17 13:05, Vijay Kilari wrote:

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:

Hi Vijay,


On 20/07/17 08:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:


On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall 
wrote:


Hi Vijay,

On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:



From: Vijaya Kumar K 

Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
Also drop unused macros and functions.
There is no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
---
v3: - Change commit message
- Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT




Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...


- Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros




[...]


diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
-#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
+#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
 #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1

 #include 

+#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
+#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)




I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved
away
in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.



Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
patch changes for compilation.
Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
asm/numa.h back.

I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
this patch.



Why adding a separate patch? The code should not have been moved away in
patch #1 as you did.


In patch#1 , I have not moved MAX_NUMNODES. It is kept in xen/numa.h file
In this patch, when VIRTUAL_BUG_ON is changed to ASSERT, in asm-x86/numa.h,
it requires MAX_NUMNODES define. So I have moved it from xen/numa.h to
asm-x86/numa.h


I am sorry but looked at your patch #1. You moved NR_NODE_MEMBLKS in 
patch #1 from asm-x86/numa.h to xen/numa.h. And then you moved it again 
here.




So, I was thinking of  adding small patch to move both MAX_NUMNODES and
NR_NODE_MEMBLKS to asm-x86/numa.h


Or better, you can do in xen/numa.h:

#define MAX_NUMNODES ...
#define NR_NODE_...

#include 

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-20 Thread Vijay Kilari 
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
>
> On 20/07/17 08:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vijay,
>>>
>>> On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:


 From: Vijaya Kumar K 

 Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
 Also drop unused macros and functions.
 There is no functional change.

 Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
 Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
 ---
 v3: - Change commit message
 - Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...
>>>
 - Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
 diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
 index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
 --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
 +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
 @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
 -#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
 +#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
  #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1

  #include 

 +#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
 +#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved
>>> away
>>> in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.
>>
>>
>> Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
>> patch changes for compilation.
>> Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
>> asm/numa.h back.
>>
>> I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
>> this patch.
>
>
> Why adding a separate patch? The code should not have been moved away in
> patch #1 as you did.

In patch#1 , I have not moved MAX_NUMNODES. It is kept in xen/numa.h file
In this patch, when VIRTUAL_BUG_ON is changed to ASSERT, in asm-x86/numa.h,
it requires MAX_NUMNODES define. So I have moved it from xen/numa.h to
asm-x86/numa.h

So, I was thinking of  adding small patch to move both MAX_NUMNODES and
NR_NODE_MEMBLKS to asm-x86/numa.h

And in code movement patch, I will move to xen/numa.h along with ASSERT code.

>
> But I still don't understand what is the exact error here... If it fails on
> this patch, likely this should have failed after applying patch #1. And
> *all* patch should be able to build without the rest of the series.

Yes, all patches are tested for compilation individually.

>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-20 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi Vijay,

On 20/07/17 08:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:

Hi Vijay,

On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:


From: Vijaya Kumar K 

Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
Also drop unused macros and functions.
There is no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
---
v3: - Change commit message
- Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT



Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...


- Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros



[...]


diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
-#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
+#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
 #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1

 #include 

+#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
+#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)



I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved away
in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.


Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
patch changes for compilation.
Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
asm/numa.h back.

I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
this patch.


Why adding a separate patch? The code should not have been moved away in 
patch #1 as you did.


But I still don't understand what is the exact error here... If it fails 
on this patch, likely this should have failed after applying patch #1. 
And *all* patch should be able to build without the rest of the series.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-20 Thread Vijay Kilari 
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall  wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
> On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> From: Vijaya Kumar K 
>>
>> Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
>> Also drop unused macros and functions.
>> There is no functional change.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
>> Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
>> ---
>> v3: - Change commit message
>> - Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT
>
>
> Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...
>
>> - Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros
>
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
>> index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
>> @@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
>> -#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
>> +#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
>>  #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1
>>
>>  #include 
>>
>> +#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
>> +#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
>
>
> I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved away
> in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.

Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
patch changes for compilation.
Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
asm/numa.h back.

I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
this patch.

>
> [...]
>
>
>> @@ -57,21 +55,23 @@ struct node_data {
>>
>>  extern struct node_data node_data[];
>>
>> -static inline __attribute__((pure)) nodeid_t phys_to_nid(paddr_t addr)
>> -{
>> -   nodeid_t nid;
>> -   VIRTUAL_BUG_ON((paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift) >=
>> memnodemapsize);
>> -   nid = memnodemap[paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift];
>> -   VIRTUAL_BUG_ON(nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_data[nid]);
>> -   return nid;
>> -}
>> -
>> -#define NODE_DATA(nid) (&(node_data[nid]))
>> -
>> -#define node_start_pfn(nid)(NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn)
>> -#define node_spanned_pages(nid)
>> (NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages)
>> -#define node_end_pfn(nid)   (NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn + \
>> -NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages)
>> +static inline __attribute_pure__ nodeid_t phys_to_nid(paddr_t addr)
>> +{
>> +   nodeid_t nid;
>> +
>> +   ASSERT((paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift) < memnodemapsize);
>> +   nid = memnodemap[paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift];
>> +   ASSERT(nid <= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_data[nid].node_start_pfn);
>> +
>> +   return nid;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define NODE_DATA(nid)  (&(node_data[nid]))
>
>
> I understand Jan asked to remove the inner parentheses here. And you didn't
> do it. However ...
>
>> +
>> +#define node_start_pfn(nid) NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn
>> +#define node_spanned_pages(nid) NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages
>> +#define node_end_pfn(nid)   NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn + \
>> + NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages
>
>
> ... here it is totally wrong to remove the parenthesis. Imagine you do:
>
> node_end_pfn(nid) * 2
>
> This will now turned into
>
> NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn + NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages * 2
>
> The parenthesis is not correct anymore and will result to wrong computation.
> You should keep the outer parenthesis *everywhere* for safety and remove
> only the inner one in NODE_DATA.

OK.

>
> This is also more than cosmetics and I think the reviewed-by from Wei should
> have been carried.

OK.

>
>>
>>  extern int valid_numa_range(u64 start, u64 end, nodeid_t node);
>>
>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/numa.h b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
>> index 6bba29e..3bb4afc 100644
>> --- a/xen/include/xen/numa.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
>> @@ -6,9 +6,6 @@
>>  #define NUMA_NO_NODE 0xFF
>>  #define NUMA_NO_DISTANCE 0xFF
>>
>> -#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
>> -#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
>> -
>
>
> See my comment above.
>
>>  #define vcpu_to_node(v) (cpu_to_node((v)->processor))
>>
>>  #define domain_to_node(d) \
>>
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-19 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi,

On 19/07/17 17:27, Wei Liu wrote:

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:23:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:


This is also more than cosmetics and I think the reviewed-by from Wei should
have been carried.


should *not* have been carried.


That's what I meant but failed to write the not.



And I agree.



Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-19 Thread Wei Liu 
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:23:43PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> This is also more than cosmetics and I think the reviewed-by from Wei should
> have been carried.

should *not* have been carried.

And I agree.

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-19 Thread Julien Grall 

Hi Vijay,

On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kil...@gmail.com wrote:

From: Vijaya Kumar K 

Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
Also drop unused macros and functions.
There is no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
---
v3: - Change commit message
- Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT


Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...


- Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros


[...]


diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
-#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
+#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
 #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1

 #include 

+#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
+#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)


I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved 
away in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.


[...]


@@ -57,21 +55,23 @@ struct node_data {

 extern struct node_data node_data[];

-static inline __attribute__((pure)) nodeid_t phys_to_nid(paddr_t addr)
-{
-   nodeid_t nid;
-   VIRTUAL_BUG_ON((paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift) >= memnodemapsize);
-   nid = memnodemap[paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift];
-   VIRTUAL_BUG_ON(nid >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_data[nid]);
-   return nid;
-}
-
-#define NODE_DATA(nid) (&(node_data[nid]))
-
-#define node_start_pfn(nid)(NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn)
-#define node_spanned_pages(nid)(NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages)
-#define node_end_pfn(nid)   (NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn + \
-NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages)
+static inline __attribute_pure__ nodeid_t phys_to_nid(paddr_t addr)
+{
+   nodeid_t nid;
+
+   ASSERT((paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift) < memnodemapsize);
+   nid = memnodemap[paddr_to_pdx(addr) >> memnode_shift];
+   ASSERT(nid <= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_data[nid].node_start_pfn);
+
+   return nid;
+}
+
+#define NODE_DATA(nid)  (&(node_data[nid]))


I understand Jan asked to remove the inner parentheses here. And you 
didn't do it. However ...



+
+#define node_start_pfn(nid) NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn
+#define node_spanned_pages(nid) NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages
+#define node_end_pfn(nid)   NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn + \
+ NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages


... here it is totally wrong to remove the parenthesis. Imagine you do:

node_end_pfn(nid) * 2

This will now turned into

NODE_DATA(nid)->node_start_pfn + NODE_DATA(nid)->node_spanned_pages * 2

The parenthesis is not correct anymore and will result to wrong 
computation. You should keep the outer parenthesis *everywhere* for 
safety and remove only the inner one in NODE_DATA.


This is also more than cosmetics and I think the reviewed-by from Wei 
should have been carried.




 extern int valid_numa_range(u64 start, u64 end, nodeid_t node);

diff --git a/xen/include/xen/numa.h b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
index 6bba29e..3bb4afc 100644
--- a/xen/include/xen/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
@@ -6,9 +6,6 @@
 #define NUMA_NO_NODE 0xFF
 #define NUMA_NO_DISTANCE 0xFF

-#define MAX_NUMNODESNR_NODES
-#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS (MAX_NUMNODES * 2)
-


See my comment above.


 #define vcpu_to_node(v) (cpu_to_node((v)->processor))

 #define domain_to_node(d) \



Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

2017-07-18 Thread vijay . kilari 
From: Vijaya Kumar K 

Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
Also drop unused macros and functions.
There is no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K 
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu 
---
v3: - Change commit message
- Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT
- Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros
---
 xen/arch/x86/numa.c| 55 +
 xen/arch/x86/srat.c|  2 +-
 xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h | 56 +++---
 xen/include/xen/numa.h |  3 ---
 4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)

diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/numa.c b/xen/arch/x86/numa.c
index d45196fa..444d7ad 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/numa.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/numa.c
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
-/* 
+/*
  * Generic VM initialization for x86-64 NUMA setups.
  * Copyright 2002,2003 Andi Kleen, SuSE Labs.
  * Adapted for Xen: Ryan Harper 
- */ 
+ */
 
 #include 
 #include 
@@ -21,13 +21,6 @@
 static int numa_setup(char *s);
 custom_param("numa", numa_setup);
 
-#ifndef Dprintk
-#define Dprintk(x...)
-#endif
-
-/* from proto.h */
-#define round_up(x,y) x)+(y))-1) & (~((y)-1)))
-
 struct node_data node_data[MAX_NUMNODES];
 
 /* Mapping from pdx to node id */
@@ -144,8 +137,9 @@ static int __init extract_lsb_from_nodes(const struct node 
*nodes,
 if ( nodes_used <= 1 )
 i = BITS_PER_LONG - 1;
 else
-i = find_first_bit(, sizeof(unsigned long)*8);
+i = find_first_bit(, sizeof(unsigned long) * 8);
 memnodemapsize = (memtop >> i) + 1;
+
 return i;
 }
 
@@ -173,7 +167,7 @@ int __init compute_hash_shift(struct node *nodes, int 
numnodes,
 }
 /* initialize NODE_DATA given nodeid and start/end */
 void __init setup_node_bootmem(nodeid_t nodeid, u64 start, u64 end)
-{ 
+{
 unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
 
 start_pfn = start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
@@ -183,7 +177,7 @@ void __init setup_node_bootmem(nodeid_t nodeid, u64 start, 
u64 end)
 NODE_DATA(nodeid)->node_spanned_pages = end_pfn - start_pfn;
 
 node_set_online(nodeid);
-} 
+}
 
 void __init numa_init_array(void)
 {
@@ -214,7 +208,7 @@ static int __init numa_emulation(u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 {
 int i;
 struct node nodes[MAX_NUMNODES];
-u64 sz = ((end_pfn - start_pfn)< 1 )
@@ -222,21 +216,22 @@ static int __init numa_emulation(u64 start_pfn, u64 
end_pfn)
 u64 x = 1;
 while ( (x << 1) < sz )
 x <<= 1;
-if ( x < sz/2 )
-printk(KERN_ERR "Numa emulation unbalanced. Complain to 
maintainer\n");
+if ( x < sz / 2 )
+printk(KERN_ERR
+   "Numa emulation unbalanced. Complain to maintainer\n");
 sz = x;
 }
 
 memset(,0,sizeof(nodes));
 for ( i = 0; i < numa_fake; i++ )
 {
-nodes[i].start = (start_pfn<> 20);
 node_set_online(i);
 }
@@ -256,7 +251,7 @@ static int __init numa_emulation(u64 start_pfn, u64 end_pfn)
 #endif
 
 void __init numa_initmem_init(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn)
-{ 
+{
 int i;
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU
@@ -291,7 +286,7 @@ void __init numa_initmem_init(unsigned long start_pfn, 
unsigned long end_pfn)
 void numa_add_cpu(int cpu)
 {
 cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, _to_cpumask[cpu_to_node(cpu)]);
-} 
+}
 
 void numa_set_node(int cpu, nodeid_t node)
 {
@@ -299,23 +294,23 @@ void numa_set_node(int cpu, nodeid_t node)
 }
 
 /* [numa=off] */
-static __init int numa_setup(char *opt) 
-{ 
-if ( !strncmp(opt,"off",3) )
+static __init int numa_setup(char *opt)
+{
+if ( !strncmp(opt, "off", 3) )
 numa_off = true;
-if ( !strncmp(opt,"on",2) )
+if ( !strncmp(opt, "on", 2) )
 numa_off = false;
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_EMU
 if ( !strncmp(opt, "fake=", 5) )
 {
 numa_off = false;
-numa_fake = simple_strtoul(opt+5,NULL,0);
+numa_fake = simple_strtoul(opt + 5, NULL, 0);
 if ( numa_fake >= MAX_NUMNODES )
 numa_fake = MAX_NUMNODES;
 }
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
-if ( !strncmp(opt,"noacpi",6) )
+if ( !strncmp(opt,"noacpi", 6) )
 {