From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/14] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:51:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20160830175115.GL24906@arm.com> References: <1472024693-12912-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <1472024693-12912-6-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <20160826124746.GB30302@arm.com> <57C15560.6020702@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57C15560.6020702-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" Cc: Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , devicetree , Zefan Li , Xinwei Hu , Tianhong Ding , Hanjun Guo List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 04:54:56PM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote: > > > On 2016/8/26 20:47, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:44PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: > >> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration > >> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific > >> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the > >> testing branch. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++--- > >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > >> index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > >> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) > >> if (ret < 0) > >> return ret; > >> > >> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) > >> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) { > >> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n"); > >> return -EINVAL; > > > > Hmm, but dummy_numa_init calls node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) for a > > completely artificial setup, created by adding all memblocks to node 0, > > so this new message will be suppressed even though things really did go > > wrong. > It will be printed by the former: numa_init(of_numa_init) Does that print an error for every possible failure case? What about the acpi path? > > In that case, don't we want to print *something* (like we do today in > > dummy_numa_init) but maybe not "No NUMA configuration found"? What > > exactly do you find inaccurate about the current message? > For example: > [ 0.000000] NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map > [ 0.000000] No NUMA configuration found > > So if of_numa_init or arm64_acpi_numa_init returned error, because of > some numa configuration error had been found, it's no good to print "No > NUMA ...". Sure, I'm all for changing the message. I just think removing it is probably unhelpful. Something like: "NUMA: Failed to initialise from firmware" might do the trick? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html