On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | +void __init acpi_numa_print_srat_mapping(void)
> | +{
> | + int i, j;
> | +
> | + for (i = 0; i < MAX_PXM_DOMAINS; i++) {
> | + int nid;
> | +
> | + nid = pxm_to_node(i);
> | + if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>
> Btw, David, while you at it, I just curious -- shouldn't we test it
> with NID_INVAL (as pxm_to_node_map initially defined to)? Not a big
> deal at all (since they are both = -1) but for the record.
> Or perhaps I miss something?
>
I don't think we need to address that since NID_INVAL is going away and
will be replaced by NUMA_NO_NODE since Lee has exposed it globally in his
mempolicy patchset, and as you mention they are the same anyway.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
