On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 02:26:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.07.20 14:13, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 07-07-20 13:59:15, Jia He wrote:
> >>> This exports memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() for module driver to use.
> >>>
> >>> memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() is a fallback option to get the nid in case
> >>> NUMA_NO_NID is detected.
> >>>
> >>> Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jia He <justin.he@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 5 +++--
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> >>> index aafcee3e3f7e..7eeb31740248 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> >>> @@ -464,10 +464,11 @@ void __init arm64_numa_init(void)
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * We hope that we will be hotplugging memory on nodes we already know about,
> >>> - * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds and we never fall back to this...
> >>> + * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds. But when SRAT is not present, the node
> >>> + * id may be probed as NUMA_NO_NODE by acpi, Here provide a fallback option.
> >>> */
> >>> int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr)
> >>> {
> >>> - pr_warn("Unknown node for memory at 0x%llx, assuming node 0\n", addr);
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid);
> >>
> >> Does it make sense to export a noop function? Wouldn't make more sense
> >> to simply make it static inline somewhere in a header? I haven't checked
> >> whether there is an easy way to do that sanely bu this just hit my eyes.
> >
> > We'll need to either add a CONFIG_ option or arch specific callback to
> > make both non-empty (x86, powerpc, ia64) and empty (arm64, sh)
> > implementations coexist ...
>
> Note: I have a similar dummy (return 0) patch for s390x lying around here.
Then we'll call it a tie - 3:3 ;-)
> --
> Thanks,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
