On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 08:01:33AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 13.06.2024 19:38, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 10:09, Linus Torvalds > > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Is there some broken scripting that people have started using (or have > >> been using for a while and was recently broken)? > > > > ... and then when I actually pull the code, I note that the problem > > where it checked _one_ bogus value has just been replaced with > > checking _another_ bogus value. > > > > Christ. > > > > What if people use a node ID that is simply outside the range > > entirely, instead of one of those special node IDs? > > > > And now for memblock_set_node() you should apparently use NUMA_NO_NODE > > to not get a warning, but for memblock_set_region_node() apparently > > the right random constant to use is MAX_NUMNODES. > > > > Does *any* of this make sense? No. > > > > How about instead of having two random constants - and not having any > > range checking that I see - just have *one* random constant for "I > > have no range", call that NUMA_NO_NODE, > > Just to mention it - my understanding is that this is an ongoing process > heading in this very direction. I'm not an mm person at all, so I can't > tell why the conversion wasn't done / can't be done all in one go. Nah, it's an historical mess and my oversight. > Jan -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
