Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86: widen NUMA nodes to be allocated from

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1270 bytes --]

On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 13:36 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 27.02.15 at 14:27, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:

> > I'm asking because I really don't like vcpu_to_node(). And I'm not
> > talking about how it is implemented (there probably are not much
> > alternatives), I'm saying I don't think it should exist, and I really
> > would see value in killing it. :-)
> 
> I'm all for killing it. In fact I'd also like to see domain_to_node()
> go away, as it's similarly bogus (no matter of the proposed
> changed implementation) - neither a vCPU nor a domain have
> a "focus" node or some such (some may happen to if their node
> mask has just a single set bit, but that's nothing code should
> depend on). 
>
I totally agree. I didn't go as far as far as suggesting that because,
if my grep-ing is not failing, it's still in use in two more places,
even with your series applied.

But yes, we really should make it possible to remove it too.

> (And btw, at the very least first_node() in your
> proposal should become any_node().)
> 
Except, there is no such function. But again, I agree, and if we get to
the point where we can kill vcpu_to_node() but need to keep
domain_to_node, we can of course implement it. :-)

Regards,
Dario

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel