Hi Jan,
On 2023/1/12 16:08, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.01.2023 07:22, Wei Chen wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Sent: 2023年1月11日 0:38
On 10.01.2023 09:49, Wei Chen wrote:
--- a/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/include/asm/numa.h
@@ -22,6 +22,12 @@ typedef u8 nodeid_t;
*/
#define NR_NODE_MEMBLKS NR_MEM_BANKS
+enum dt_numa_status {
+ DT_NUMA_INIT,
I don't see any use of this. I also think the name isn't good, as INIT
can be taken for "initializer" as well as "initialized". Suggesting an
alternative would require knowing what the future plans with this are;
right now ...
static enum dt_numa_status __read_mostly device_tree_numa;
There's no DT_NUMA_INIT here. You _imply_ it having a value of zero.
How about I assign device_tree_numa explicitly like:
... __read_mostly device_tree_numa = DT_NUMA_UNINIT;
We use DT_NUMA_INIT to indicate device_tree_numa is in a default value
(System's initial value, hasn't done initialization). Maybe rename it
To DT_NUMA_UNINIT be better?
Perhaps, yes.
--- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/numa.h
@@ -12,7 +12,6 @@ extern unsigned int numa_node_to_arch_nid(nodeid_t n);
#define ZONE_ALIGN (1UL << (MAX_ORDER+PAGE_SHIFT))
-extern bool numa_disabled(void);
extern nodeid_t setup_node(unsigned int pxm);
extern void srat_detect_node(int cpu);
--- a/xen/include/xen/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/numa.h
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ extern void numa_init_array(void);
extern void numa_set_node(unsigned int cpu, nodeid_t node);
extern void numa_initmem_init(unsigned long start_pfn, unsigned long
end_pfn);
extern void numa_fw_bad(void);
+extern bool numa_disabled(void);
extern int arch_numa_setup(const char *opt);
extern bool arch_numa_unavailable(void);
How is this movement of a declaration related to the subject of the patch?
Can I add some messages in commit log to say something like "As we have
Implemented numa_disabled for Arm, so we move numa_disabled to common header"?
See your own patch 3, where you have a similar statement (albeit you mean
"declaration" there, not "definition"). However, right now numa_disabled()
is a #define on Arm, so the declaration becoming common isn't really
warranted. In fact it'll get in the way of converting function-like macros
to inline functions for Misra.
Yes, I think you're right. This may also seem a little strange,when we
disable NUMA, there are two headers have numa_disabled statement. I will
revert this change. And I also will covert the macro to a static inline
function.
Cheers,
Wei Chen
Jan
