From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:44:28 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v3 07/23] mm/memblock: switch to use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
 of MAX_NUMNODES
In-Reply-To: <20131213212912.GL27070@htj.dyndns.org>
References: <1386625856-12942-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <1386625856-12942-8-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
 <20131213212912.GL27070@htj.dyndns.org>
Message-ID: <52ABA9EC.5070100@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Friday 13 December 2013 04:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> 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;
> 
Agree.

>> @@ -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.
>
OK.

> 
> Reviwed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> 
Thanks