On 29.02.16 15:42:58, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/29/2016 09:34 AM, Robert Richter wrote:
> >On 22.02.16 17:58:22, David Daney wrote:
> >>From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gkulkarni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>+static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
> >>+{
> >>+ int ret;
> >>+
> >>+ nodes_clear(numa_nodes_parsed);
> >>+ nodes_clear(node_possible_map);
> >>+ nodes_clear(node_online_map);
> >>+ numa_free_distance();
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Cleanup for any previous numa_alloc_distance()
>
> >>+
> >>+ ret = numa_alloc_distance();
> >>+ if (ret < 0)
> >>+ return ret;
> >
> >If you move this before the remaining initializers, you will need to
> >clean this up on error.
>
> Yes, we do this. See above.
>
> >So better move it back after
> >numa_register_nodes() as it was in v10. This should work since
> >distances are used not earlier than numa is enabled.
>
> I moved it here for a reason.
>
> The init_func (of_numa_init() in this case) makes callbacks that use the
> numa_distance object. We need to allocate it before using it. Allocating it
> after calling the init_func() is too late.
Sounds reasonable and looks sane now.
Thanks,
-Robert
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
