From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tj@kernel.org (Tejun Heo) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:29:12 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v3 07/23] mm/memblock: switch to use NUMA_NO_NODE instead of MAX_NUMNODES In-Reply-To: <1386625856-12942-8-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> References: <1386625856-12942-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1386625856-12942-8-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> Message-ID: <20131213212912.GL27070@htj.dyndns.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES) > + pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n", > + __func__); Why not just use WARN_ONCE()? We'd want to know who the caller is anyway. Also, wouldn't something like the following simpler? if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, blah blah)) nid = NUMA_NO_NODE; > @@ -768,6 +773,11 @@ void __init_memblock __next_free_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx, int nid, > struct memblock_type *rsv = &memblock.reserved; > int mi = *idx & 0xffffffff; > int ri = *idx >> 32; > + bool check_node = (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (nid != MAX_NUMNODES); > + > + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES) > + pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n", > + __func__); Ditto. Provided the patch is tested on an actual NUMA setup. Reviwed-by: Tejun Heo Thanks. -- tejun