On 10/14/2014 01:18 PM, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > On 10/14/2014 08:41 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> Oh, that's a really good point. But can you at least change the message to do a >> FW_BUG and dump the node information? That would be useful for debugging. > > But this not always will be a FW_BUG. If a user will not populate one of > the nodes with memory this will happen as well. Hmmm ... let's maybe think about this. I wonder if there is some mechanism with which we can determine that? Larry Woodman -- is there any mm related call that we can make to determine if a node is memory-less? I could see this to be > the main reason of this message to be printed. In this case > num_possible_nodes() will be e.g. 2 and dev_to_node(&pdev->dev) will be > -1 so I don't really know what will be a useful info to print so we > don't confuse the user. If you see -1, it means "No node was assigned" ... so -1 in a debug message is okay IMO. P. > T > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
