[David Rientjes - Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:06:21PM -0700]
| 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.
|
I see. Thanks!
-- Cyrill
--
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
