From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tadeusz Struk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] crypto: qat - Enforce valid numa configuration Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:18:12 -0700 Message-ID: <543D5AD4.1090809@intel.com> References: <20141014012251.742.5500.stgit@tstruk-mobl1> <20141014012432.742.24559.stgit@tstruk-mobl1> <543D00C3.9000208@redhat.com> <543D381B.9080609@intel.com> <543D441D.5090301@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, bruce.w.allan@intel.com, qat-linux@intel.com, naleksan@redhat.com, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net To: Prarit Bhargava Return-path: Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:53569 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076AbaJNRWB (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:22:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <543D441D.5090301@redhat.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/14/2014 08:41 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > Oh, that's a really good point. But can you at least change the message to do a > FW_BUG and dump the node information? That would be useful for debugging. But this not always will be a FW_BUG. If a user will not populate one of the nodes with memory this will happen as well. I could see this to be the main reason of this message to be printed. In this case num_possible_nodes() will be e.g. 2 and dev_to_node(&pdev->dev) will be -1 so I don't really know what will be a useful info to print so we don't confuse the user. T