From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06A5C433F5 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 17:23:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 0D0416B0072; Fri, 6 May 2022 13:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 0582A6B0073; Fri, 6 May 2022 13:23:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id E3C986B0074; Fri, 6 May 2022 13:23:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D18C06B0072 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 13:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B0442207B for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 17:23:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79435990872.16.F24DEBF Received: from ams.source.kernel.org (ams.source.kernel.org [145.40.68.75]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239AC40004 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 17:23:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75303B837F3; Fri, 6 May 2022 17:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6385C385A8; Fri, 6 May 2022 17:23:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1651857831; bh=nXZ3Q1jTbaZ/sK8x9V920nhEF4T7dJ3ktr0gnhCZATw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=OfYs4mRhp6lLGqo13sQacwVW9iittAZ7SAI7kb+r6hxxdi/apElxndNV2zhleIjOa R19ikT+HJLadc/9Ye9/w48Cbh2j2zDiXP1448RufOjTjoKrwQLOpaYs7svQda8uNHl 1yp0T2hge2QaBesrUXtuFaOu7mz+e+agAvK9ixsfGkCLNaHFlC3+EC8Cd5CNeCOX3J v498ZxqcSIobrgKGg/YVtjgFYXl3l/djT+e/iwLJwUmjgvQDs6QaZFv0sqApMzlbYU uRHapzwdExq7H7WLMD+rjjwqt1kgyHR0gJHvZWb9+1I3CwwnqPnicF0+eHdFs1YRp5 atMpv+P/D1hUQ== Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 12:23:48 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Peng Liu Cc: bhelgaas@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, logang@deltatee.com, martin.oliveira@eideticom.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, axboe@kernel.dk, kch@nvidia.com, ming.lei@redhat.com, shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com, mcgrof@kernel.org, jiangguoqing@kylinos.cn, jpittman@redhat.com, dave@stgolabs.net, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] include/linux/nodemask.h: create node_available() helper Message-ID: <20220506172348.GA543299@bhelgaas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220506015801.757918-2-liupeng256@huawei.com> X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 239AC40004 X-Stat-Signature: 9aujssqr54p11xn4exddf7jzbgqq3qns X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=OfYs4mRh; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of helgaas@kernel.org designates 145.40.68.75 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=helgaas@kernel.org; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=kernel.org X-HE-Tag: 1651857820-103532 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Subject line convention looks like "numa: ..." On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 01:58:00AM +0000, Peng Liu wrote: > Lots of code dose does > node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_online(node) > or > node == NUMA_NO_NODE || node_online(node) > so create node_available to do this to simplify code. node_available() I'm not really sure what meaning "node_available" conveys, though. Probably just because I don't understand NUMA. Should the test for NUMA_NO_NODE be folded into node_state() or node_online() directly instead of adding a new node_available() interface? NUMA_NO_NODE is -1. It's not clear to me that node_state()/ node_isset()/test_bit() would do the right thing given -1. I doubt all node_online() callers ensure they don't pass NUMA_NO_NODE. > --- a/include/linux/nodemask.h > +++ b/include/linux/nodemask.h > @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ > * > * int node_online(node) Is some node online? > * int node_possible(node) Is some node possible? > + * int node_available(node) Is some node available(online or NUMA_NO_NODE)? Existing file generally fits in 80 columns; follow that lead unless you have a really good reason. E.g., maybe this? + * int node_available(node) Node online or NUMA_NO_NODE