From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932351AbZJ0Uz6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:55:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932284AbZJ0Uz5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:55:57 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f208.google.com ([209.85.219.208]:36388 "EHLO mail-ew0-f208.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932133AbZJ0Uz4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:55:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=q6duR/4Cq4zswqza0rkgZueks9xPh8EVsFqn7m4jWfmxgPzqyGMCNUr3gIJPJZC+0b slYjcdldMGaqodpwTGhtG2CJMuQ4AhK93EnhU9M5BjfmLQSdpAonkW0JIkul62uEYOi2 CzNz5wRyjaiNtCjJE2yhIR92U+jS1WdDPOGjA= Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:55:58 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: David Rientjes Cc: Ingo Molnar , Mike Travis , Andi Kleen , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Jack Steiner , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org, Yinghai Lu , Mel Gorman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log Message-ID: <20091027205558.GM5893@lenovo> References: <20091023233743.439628000@alcatraz.americas.sgi.com> <20091023233750.702443000@alcatraz.americas.sgi.com> <87pr8ay6tc.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <4AE710C9.2070307@sgi.com> <4AE75162.7080903@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [David Rientjes - Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 01:25:51PM -0700] | On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Mike Travis wrote: | ... | + | +void __init acpi_numa_print_srat_mapping(void) | +{ | + int i, j; | + | + for (i = 0; i < MAX_PXM_DOMAINS; i++) { | + int nid; | + | + nid = pxm_to_node(i); | + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE) Btw, David, while you at it, I just curious -- shouldn't we test it with NID_INVAL (as pxm_to_node_map initially defined to)? Not a big deal at all (since they are both = -1) but for the record. Or perhaps I miss something? | + continue; ... -- Cyrill