From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix test/prefered v2
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:44:22 +0100
Message-ID: <20090116014422.GA1475@one.firstfloor.org>
References: <E1LNTzS-0001v1-Rf@eag09.americas.sgi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Return-path: <linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E1LNTzS-0001v1-Rf@eag09.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: linux-numa-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-numa.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Cc: andi@firstfloor.org, linux-numa@vger.kernel.org

> There is numa_num_possible_nodes(). It determines the size of

Ah that's better.

> the kernel nodemask_t (MAX_NUMNODES) by counting the size of Mems_allowed:
> in /proc/self/status. (And if that is not available, falls back to a
> procedure very similar to your max_numnode().)
> The patch, but using numa_num_possible_nodes() is below.
> It returns the same results, in my tests.
> 
> Is there some subtle difference between numa_num_possible_nodes() and
> your function that I'm missing?

No your patch should be ok.

-Andi