From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184F96B0044 for ; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:35:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:33:50 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: get_nid_for_pfn() returns int Message-Id: <20090126223350.610b0283.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090119175919.GA7476@us.ibm.com> References: <4973AEEC.70504@gmail.com> <20090119175919.GA7476@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Gary Hade Cc: Roel Kluin , Ingo Molnar , lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:59:19 -0800 Gary Hade wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:36:28PM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote: > > get_nid_for_pfn() returns int > > > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin > > --- > > vi drivers/base/node.c +256 > > static int get_nid_for_pfn(unsigned long pfn) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c > > index 43fa90b..f8f578a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/node.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c > > @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ int unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk) > > sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->phys_index); > > sect_end_pfn = sect_start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1; > > for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) { > > - unsigned int nid; > > + int nid; > > > > nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn); > > if (nid < 0) > > My mistake. Good catch. > Presumably the (nid < 0) case has never happened. Should we retain the test? Is silently skipping the node in that case desirable behaviour? -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org