From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yh0-f41.google.com (mail-yh0-f41.google.com [209.85.213.41]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A766B0031 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:52:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yh0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f11so2156432yha.0 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from bear.ext.ti.com (bear.ext.ti.com. [192.94.94.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y62si3690983yhc.194.2013.12.13.16.52.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:52:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52ABABDA.4020808@ti.com> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:52:42 -0500 From: Santosh Shilimkar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis References: <1386625856-12942-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1386625856-12942-9-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20131213213735.GM27070@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20131213213735.GM27070@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Yinghai Lu , Andrew Morton , Grygorii Strashko On Friday 13 December 2013 04:37 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:41PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Introduce memblock memory allocation APIs which allow to support >> PAE or LPAE extension on 32 bits archs where the physical memory >> start address can be beyond 4GB. In such cases, existing bootmem >> APIs which operate on 32 bit addresses won't work and needs >> memblock layer which operates on 64 bit addresses. > > The overall API looks good to me. Thanks for doing this! > >> +static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_internal( >> + phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, >> + phys_addr_t min_addr, phys_addr_t max_addr, >> + int nid) >> +{ >> + phys_addr_t alloc; >> + void *ptr; >> + >> + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES) >> + pr_warn("%s: usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE\n", >> + __func__); > > Why not use WARN_ONCE()? Also, shouldn't nid be set to NUMA_NO_NODE > here? > You want all the users using MAX_NUMNODES to know about it so that the wrong usage can be fixed. WARN_ONCE will hide that. > ... >> + if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) { > > Otherwise, the above test is broken. > So the idea was just to warn the users and allow them to fix the code. Well we are just allowing the existing users of using either MAX_NUMNODES or NUMA_NO_NODE continue to work. Thats what we discussed, right ? -- 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