On 10/14/2014 01:27 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > 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. Never mind -- I'm not thinking straight after a long weekend :) This is all okay. The message above will only print iff node < 0, ie) -1. So I'll ack shortly. P. > > 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
