On 14.03.2025 18:24, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > domain_adjust_tot_pages() decreases the outstanding claims of a domain > as pages are allocated, so that'll need to take into account the node in > which an allocation is done. Deallocations just pass NUMA_NO_NODE. > > domain_set_outstanding_pages() takes the node on which to to stake an > exact-node claim, or NUMA_NO_NODE if it's a non-exact claim.
This doesn't fit the code, where you make both callers pass NUMA_NO_NODE. With that it's hard to see why ... > Not a functional change, as neither function uses the arguments for > anything yet. It's a prerequisite to simplify for the following patch > that introduces per-node claim counts. ... this part of the change would simplify further changes: Any actual use of the parameter would be meaningless as long as no caller passes a valid node ID. IOW it looks to me as if this part of the change wants moving elsewhere. Jan
