Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

From: "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
To: Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@caviumnetworks.com>,
	Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>,
	David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Xinwei Hu <huxinwei@huawei.com>, Zefan Li <lizefan@huawei.com>,
	Tianhong Ding <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 19:27:25 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <574D751D.9020901@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <574D543A.2090406@suse.com>

On 2016/5/31 17:07, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
> 
> Which kernel version is this patch based on?

Base on mainline(git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git), I git pulled about 3-5 days ago, the last commit-id is dc03c0f.

And thess patches base on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679 series(acpi numa) as David Daney's requirement.

> 
> 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?

Because they fixed two different problems.

> 
>>   static int __init of_numa_parse_distance_map_v1(struct device_node *map)
>> -- 
>> 2.5.0
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
> 
> .
> 