On 23 Jul 2024, at 17:45, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:35:23 -0400 Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> > 64 bool folio_has_cpupid(struct folio *folio)
>>> 65 {
>>> 66 return !(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) ||
>>> 67 node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio));
>>> 68 }
>>> 69
>>
>> The error has been reported by Lorenzo Stoakes at: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/6effd690-3cf2-46bc-8061-2d19922ad4fa@lucifer.local/.
>> I will fix it in the next version.
>
> a) "in the next version" is too casual, sorry. We broke the build! Panic!
> I'll apply this:
>
> --- a/mm/memory-tiers.c~memory-tiering-introduce-folio_has_cpupid-check-fix
> +++ a/mm/memory-tiers.c
> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ static const struct bus_type memory_tier
> .dev_name = "memory_tier",
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING
> /**
> * folio_has_cpupid - check if a folio has cpupid information
> * @folio: folio to check
> @@ -66,6 +67,7 @@ bool folio_has_cpupid(struct folio *foli
> return !(sysctl_numa_balancing_mode & NUMA_BALANCING_MEMORY_TIERING) ||
> node_is_toptier(folio_nid(folio));
> }
> +#endif
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_MIGRATION
> static int top_tier_adistance;
> _
Thanks. It does fix the build issue.
>
> b) is a next version planned so soon? If so, why was this version
> sent? Please try to avoid sending an entire new patchset for a few
> trivial fixups. Just send the fixups!
There is a discussion on renaming folio_has_cpupid in patch 2[1]. I am
waiting for the feedback before sending out a new version. The new
version renames the function and reverse the logic. I assume it does not
count as fixups. Let me know if you think otherwise.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/D2WXTV2186EV.2OTDTPCJSNVN1@xxxxxxxxxx/
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
