On 2016/1/27 22:18, Robert Richter wrote: > On 27.01.16 14:15:06, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> Hi Robert, >> >> On 2016/1/25 18:26, Robert Richter wrote: >>> On 23.01.16 17:39:27, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> After the cleanup for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(), >>>> it can be used for architetures both x86 and arm64, since >>>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is not enabled for arm64, so no >>>> worry about that. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 42 ------------------------------- >>>> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 54 ---------------------------------------- >>>> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) >>> This one reverts acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() to the x86 version. >>> I rather would prefer the arm64 version for the generic code. We could >>> keep the x86 implementation until x86 maintainers agree to remove them >>> and use the generic one (implemented in a separate patch). >>> >>> Doing so we can move acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() from the >>> beginning to generic code (used for arm64) and have this last patch to >>> remove the x86 version. >> I think the x86 version is the generic one, all the flags (ACPI_SRAT_MEM_HOT_PLUGGABLE and >> etc) are defined in the ACPI spec, x86 just use all the flags because it support such features. >> For ARM64, firmware should be careful and represent the true platform configuration to >> OS, such as on ARM64, we can't set hotpluggable flag as the ARM64 arch don't support >> memory hot-plug yet (also the firmware don't support it too), if firmware do things right, >> it will be not worries for the kernel. > But you are removing all arm64 from your first patches. Why do you > introduce acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in the beginning to remove > it in the end again? I esp. like the arm64 version because of its > direct returns. So I still would like to see generic code for arm64 > from the beginning. Maybe have a copy of x86 initially and make > modifications for arm64 to it, or move missing code (hotplug, etc.) > from x86 to generic and remove x86 arch code with the last patch. OK, so that's the logic and ordering of formatting the patch set, it's easy to fix :) I will introduce the generic code for acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init() in drivers/acpi/numa.c and mark it as __weak from the beginning, and move missing code from x86 to generic, then remove x86 one as you suggested, is that OK? Thanks Hanjun -- 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
