Re: [PATCH 1/5] try parent numa_node at first before using default

[Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@Sun.COM>]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 12:54:58PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
>>> @@ -547,6 +547,8 @@ static void klist_children_put(struct klist_node *n)
>>>  
>>>  void device_initialize(struct device *dev)
>>>  {
>>> +	int node;
>>> +
>>>  	kobj_set_kset_s(dev, devices_subsys);
>>>  	kobject_init(&dev->kobj);
>>>  	klist_init(&dev->klist_children, klist_children_get,
>>> @@ -557,7 +559,9 @@ void device_initialize(struct device *dev)
>>>  	spin_lock_init(&dev->devres_lock);
>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->devres_head);
>>>  	device_init_wakeup(dev, 0);
>>> -	set_dev_node(dev, -1);
>>> +
>>> +	node = dev->parent ? dev_to_node(dev->parent) : -1;
>>> +	set_dev_node(dev, node);
>>>  }
>> Two remarks:
>>
>>   - device_add() is perhaps a better place to do this.  Otherwise you
>>     had to change code like drivers/input/gameport/gameport.c::
>>     gameport_init_port() which sets the parent device *after* the
>>     call to device_initialize().
if other device overwrite that, it is OK.
even for all pci_dev, pci_device_add will call set_dev_node(&dev->dev, pcibus_to_node(bus));
to overwrite it.
but for netdev under pci_dev, it will get node from pci_dev directly.

> 
> I agree, lots of code sets up the parent pointer after initialize and
> before add.  One such example is the whole USB subsystem.
> 
> Which makes me wonder how this code was really tested at all to show
> that it actually had an affect...

original default is -1, and this patch just try to use parent's node as default.

YH