On 2016/8/26 20:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:44PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
>> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
>> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
>> testing branch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
>> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
>> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> Hmm, but dummy_numa_init calls node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) for a
> completely artificial setup, created by adding all memblocks to node 0,
> so this new message will be suppressed even though things really did go
> wrong.
It will be printed by the former: numa_init(of_numa_init)
>
> In that case, don't we want to print *something* (like we do today in
> dummy_numa_init) but maybe not "No NUMA configuration found"? What
> exactly do you find inaccurate about the current message?
For example:
[ 0.000000] NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map
[ 0.000000] No NUMA configuration found
So if of_numa_init or arm64_acpi_numa_init returned error, because of
some numa configuration error had been found, it's no good to print "No NUMA ...".
>
> Will
>
> .
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
