From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com (e5.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.145])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "e5.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BF94DDFB0
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:36:11 +1100 (EST)
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236])
	by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBBIZQl6003120
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:35:26 -0500
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215])
	by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id
	mBBIa610124504
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:36:06 -0500
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id
	mBBIa59f001092
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:36:06 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Fix a bug and cleanup NUMA boot-time code
To: paulus@samba.org
From: Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:36:03 -0800
Message-Id: <20081211183603.981E651D@kernel>
Cc: Jon Tollefson <kniht@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/options/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

The first patch in this series is a genuine bug fix.  The rest
are really just an RFC.

Jon introduced a bug a while ago.  I introduced another when
trying to fix Jon's bug.  I refuse to accept personal blame for
this and, instead, blame the code. :)

The reset of the series are "cleanups" that I think will help
clarify the code in numa.c and work to ensure that the next
bonehead like me is not as able to easily muck up the code. :)

The cleanups increase in impact and intrusiveness as the series
goes along, so please consider them an RFC.  But, what I really
want to figure out is a safer way to initialize NODE_DATA() and
start using it as we bring up bootmem on all the nodes.