Hi Julien, > -----Original Message----- > From: Julien Grall <[email protected]> > Sent: 2021年8月27日 22:19 > To: Wei Chen <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: Bertrand Marquis <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [XEN RFC PATCH 35/40] xen: enable numa_scan_nodes for device > tree based NUMA > > Hi Wei, > > On 11/08/2021 11:24, Wei Chen wrote: > > Now, we can use the same function for ACPI and device tree based > > NUMA to scan memory nodes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <[email protected]> > > --- > > xen/common/numa.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/xen/common/numa.c b/xen/common/numa.c > > index 8ca13e27d1..d15c2fc311 100644 > > --- a/xen/common/numa.c > > +++ b/xen/common/numa.c > > @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ void __init numa_initmem_init(unsigned long > start_pfn, unsigned long end_pfn) > > return; > > #endif > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA) || defined(CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_NUMA) > > numa.c is only built when CONFIG_NUMA is set. I don't think CONFIG_NUMA > will ever set if neither CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA or CONFIG_DEVICE_TREE_NUMA is > set. So do we actually need this #ifdef? >
Yes, you're right. This check should be removed. > > if ( !numa_off && !numa_scan_nodes((u64)start_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT, > > (u64)end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) ) > > return; > > > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
