Hi Wanpeng,
On 09/06/2013 10:16 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
......
+#ifdef CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE
+ unsigned long kernel_end;
+
+ if (movablenode_enable_srat&&
+ memblock.current_order == MEMBLOCK_ORDER_LOW_TO_HIGH) {
I think memblock.current_order == MEMBLOCK_ORDER_LOW_TO_HIGH is always
true if config MOVABLE_NODE and movablenode_enable_srat == true if PATCH
11/11 is applied.
memblock.current_order == MEMBLOCK_ORDER_LOW_TO_HIGH is true here if
MOVABLE_NODE
is configured, and it will be reset after SRAT is parsed. But
movablenode_enable_srat
could only be true when users specify movablenode boot option in the
kernel commandline.
You are right.
I mean the change should be:
+#ifdef CONFIG_MOVABLE_NODE
+ unsigned long kernel_end;
+
+ if (movablenode_enable_srat) {
The is unnecessary to check memblock.current_order since it is always true
if movable_node is configured and movablenode_enable_srat is true.
But I think, memblock.current_order is set outside init_mem_mapping(). And
the path in the if statement could only be run when current order is from
low to high. So I think it is safe to check it here.
I prefer to keep it at least in the next version patch-set. If others also
think it is unnecessary, I'm OK with removing the checking. :)
Thanks. :)
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>