On 04/20/2016 01:31 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 20 April 2016 at 09:40, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
@@ -388,7 +389,9 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void) void __init arm64_numa_init(void) { if (!numa_off) { - if (!numa_init(of_numa_init)) + if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arm64_acpi_numa_init)) + return; + if (acpi_disabled && !numa_init(of_numa_init)) return; }On top of the latest version of the dt-based numa patch, if 'numa=off' specified in the command line, this function will fallback to invoke dummy_numa_init(), which give rise the question here is, do we need to touch any ACPI related stuff in the case? If not, then the outputno, ACPI is not fallback configuration for DT and vice versa.message "No NUMA configuration found" followed seems is not necessary since it's a little bit confusing in case of numa has already been turned off explicitly.thanks, this print can be moved out. from function dummy_numa_init and it can be added in function arm64_numa_init as a last line of if (!numa_off) to indicate, ACPI/DT based NUMA configuration failed. more appropriate would be, pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA configuration failed or not found");
Although purely cosmetic, I agree that we need to improve the messages as to not confuse people.
I will rework the messages with your suggestions in mind to see if we can get something that is both concise and unambiguously reflects what the user asked for.
David. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html