Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL

Mike Rapoport
2020-07-07T12:13:28Z

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 07-07-20 13:59:15, Jia He wrote:
> > This exports memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() for module driver to use.
> >
> > memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() is a fallback option to get the nid in case
> > NUMA_NO_NID is detected.
> >
> > Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@arm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> > index aafcee3e3f7e..7eeb31740248 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -464,10 +464,11 @@ void __init arm64_numa_init(void)
> >
> > /*
> > * We hope that we will be hotplugging memory on nodes we already know about,
> > - * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds and we never fall back to this...
> > + * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds. But when SRAT is not present, the node
> > + * id may be probed as NUMA_NO_NODE by acpi, Here provide a fallback option.
> > */
> > int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> > {
> > - pr_warn("Unknown node for memory at 0x%llx, assuming node 0\n", addr);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid);
>
> Does it make sense to export a noop function? Wouldn't make more sense
> to simply make it static inline somewhere in a header? I haven't checked
> whether there is an easy way to do that sanely bu this just hit my eyes.

We'll need to either add a CONFIG_ option or arch specific callback to
make both non-empty (x86, powerpc, ia64) and empty (arm64, sh)
implementations coexist ...

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.