From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F3DC43603 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:44:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A792068E for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2019 20:44:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="SmOgiwnK" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726780AbfLIUon (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:44:43 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-f196.google.com ([209.85.215.196]:45806 "EHLO mail-pg1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726642AbfLIUon (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Dec 2019 15:44:43 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-f196.google.com with SMTP id b9so7289618pgk.12 for ; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:44:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=P6A5+rZhTptmYi/XXvTMUxMhuaBe3WlijHoR7rvgnBA=; b=SmOgiwnKT67WrEjvZqB4vlKa7V/9WaeW85L24/yIVj4xe1O7wvkpkyTkoOf6uBavQJ WCxT1w3DL1XCYg9IRrIq2KzQgsrbFVl9ep8dYKN3cH8RNRxXjODwv2Ahw6CMYmN5ioaV 8Wqc0VxAfQZtb8wDHlAkCBQO+yDjV5qoOnpMxzi9I+Ir6YnaC+i/lXbENNh3OXM54w2f C39VFqSVak0aN0fLmi0jNzkagWndrb/Ns4mYEuzIu8jvhaYytZOUYKTeaJXejjtgD4gE JvdS82p+CPVCnOGIjxXgbNAdNQHmjUuQ6G6V80UopznS75aermlda9QLXeA6OfYiympq ic/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=P6A5+rZhTptmYi/XXvTMUxMhuaBe3WlijHoR7rvgnBA=; b=HdBhku2uMUSRNPTEtthB+c42lPBlJIj8oadtsHpCN5gSe/NkpuDVJafxLxodAsVDZW 8jlKqNn3U7mXKtHkADVXz9TXfwFNukl7Ps3MCfXTm+9QU4WPm1SKMGUsgkuo5oROs+Rs DoC3iR56qpMpkfPPNMmRyTxbDDpCLC8LeWTVd9m+YJZGnMBT6vH9im2Z55BtihIWbFUc ZNFprq8BYrKdkwWQ21eQP1PTSvuf1sp1K8/3nsF40NeBR/KsVe2mD0OFpWBmecuVKJJ5 i2bfxs76bqVKy6Hng1kGYY8/rdNgn9mSdTm8f3GfSkA+7thbdHPieg/NSbbfEBSazr03 +3kQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVgZlXWAYRBVhdtAGIuccd3L8SiimLtA6Q/vrDAlhUmMgf7adol EyxIkWZj8HCbrNOOmoS/o5k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx5zuFSs70Zm4tuzPqhBiILuMoQQ4hLWqqX7caxL1/j2f7pAa0eTIUH3bFhuunzByguYf//cQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:6787:: with SMTP id b129mr20703137pgc.103.1575924282880; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:44:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2600:1700:e321:62f0:329c:23ff:fee3:9d7c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm361891pfx.68.2019.12.09.12.44.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:44:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 12:44:40 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck To: Alexander Duyck Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: Fix test_async_driver_probe if NUMA is disabled Message-ID: <20191209204440.GA1584@roeck-us.net> References: <20191127202453.28087-1-linux@roeck-us.net> <4a2aa8554933c2d004761d5f3e8132018be5ea27.camel@linux.intel.com> <377feb00-9288-e03c-b8a7-26ba87e24927@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:18:28AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > I thought the code is specifically checking devices which it previously > > created, which are well defined and understood test devices. After all, > > the check is in the test driver's probe function. Guess I really don't > > understand the code. Please take my patch as bug report, and submit > > whatever fix you think is correct. > > Sorry I had overlooked that this is the test code. > > I suppose it should be fine since we specify the node ID for all instances > where we register an asychronous test device. > That isn't exacly an endorsement. Would you mind submitting a patch that is acceptable for you ? I'll be more than happy to test it. Thanks, Guenter