Re: [PATCH 2/7] powerpc numa: Minor debugging code changes

[Nathan Lynch <nathanl@austin.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 10:27 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 18:34 -0600, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > Don't print a meaningless associativity depth (-1) on non-numa systems.
> ...
> > -	dbg("NUMA associativity depth for CPU/Memory: %d\n", min_common_depth);
> >  	if (min_common_depth < 0)
> >  		return min_common_depth;
> >  
> > +	dbg("NUMA associativity depth for CPU/Memory: %d\n", min_common_depth);
> 
> This is debugging code anyway, right?
> 
> I thought this might be useful when you're booting on a machine which
> you _think_ should be NUMA, but doesn't come up that way.  Did you boot
> a non-NUMA kernel, or is something in the reporting wrong?  It makes it
> pretty obvious when you see this printout.

I think it's pretty obvious anyway -- we still print a message about not
finding the ibm,associativity-reference-points property, which is the
only reason min_common_depth would be -1.

This file isn't built when CONFIG_NUMA=n, so the placement of the dbg()
isn't going to shed any light on that particular operator error.