Subject line convention looks like "numa: ..."
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 01:58:00AM +0000, Peng Liu wrote:
> Lots of code dose
does
> node != NUMA_NO_NODE && !node_online(node)
> or
> node == NUMA_NO_NODE || node_online(node)
> so create node_available to do this to simplify code.
node_available()
I'm not really sure what meaning "node_available" conveys, though.
Probably just because I don't understand NUMA.
Should the test for NUMA_NO_NODE be folded into node_state() or
node_online() directly instead of adding a new node_available()
interface?
NUMA_NO_NODE is -1. It's not clear to me that node_state()/
node_isset()/test_bit() would do the right thing given -1. I doubt
all node_online() callers ensure they don't pass NUMA_NO_NODE.
> --- a/include/linux/nodemask.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nodemask.h
> @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@
> *
> * int node_online(node) Is some node online?
> * int node_possible(node) Is some node possible?
> + * int node_available(node) Is some node available(online or NUMA_NO_NODE)?
Existing file generally fits in 80 columns; follow that lead unless
you have a really good reason. E.g., maybe this?
+ * int node_available(node) Node online or NUMA_NO_NODE
