From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Brugger Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 11:07:06 +0200 Message-ID: <574D543A.2090406@suse.com> References: <1464427377-12712-1-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> <1464427377-12712-6-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1464427377-12712-6-git-send-email-thunder.leizhen-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Zhen Lei , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel , Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Robert Richter , David Daney , Rob Herring , Frank Rowand , Grant Likely , devicetree , linux-kernel Cc: Xinwei Hu , Zefan Li , Hanjun Guo , Tianhong Ding List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 28/05/16 11:22, 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 > --- Which kernel version is this patch based on? Regards, Matthias > arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/of/of_numa.c | 7 +++---- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > index 2601660..1b9622c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c > @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ 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; > + } > > ret = numa_register_nodes(); > if (ret < 0) > @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void) > > if (numa_off) > pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */ > - else > - pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n"); > pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n", > 0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1); > > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_numa.c b/drivers/of/of_numa.c > index fb62307..3157130 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/of_numa.c > +++ b/drivers/of/of_numa.c > @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void) > struct device_node *np = NULL; > struct resource rsrc; > u32 nid; > - int i, r = 0; > + int i, r; > > for_each_node_by_type(np, "memory") { > r = of_property_read_u32(np, "numa-node-id", &nid); > @@ -81,12 +81,11 @@ static int __init of_numa_parse_memory_nodes(void) > if (!i || r) { > of_node_put(np); > pr_err("NUMA: bad property in memory node\n"); > - r = r ? : -EINVAL; > - break; > + return r ? : -EINVAL; > } > } > > - return r; > + return 0; > } > Well this is fixing changes you introduced in this patch-set. Any reason this is not part of patch 2? > static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map) > -- > 2.5.0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > -- 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