On Wednesday 04 December 2013 11:07 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:54:47AM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> Well as you know there are architectures still using bootmem even after >> this series. Changing MAX_NUMNODES to NUMA_NO_NODE is too invasive and >> actually should be done in a separate series. As commented, the best >> time to do that would be when all remaining architectures moves to >> memblock. >> >> Just to give you perspective, look at the patch end of the email which >> Grygorrii cooked up. It doesn't cover all the users of MAX_NUMNODES >> and we are bot even sure whether the change is correct and its >> impact on the code which we can't even tests. I would really want to >> avoid touching all the architectures and keep the scope of the series >> to core code as we aligned initially. >> >> May be you have better idea to handle this change so do >> let us know how to proceed with it. With such a invasive change the >> $subject series can easily get into circles again :-( > > But we don't have to use MAX_NUMNODES for the new interface, no? Or > do you think that it'd be more confusing because it ends up mixing the > two? The issue is memblock code already using MAX_NUMNODES. Please look at __next_free_mem_range() and __next_free_mem_range_rev(). The new API use the above apis and hence use MAX_NUMNODES. If the usage of these constant was consistent across bootmem and memblock then we wouldn't have had the whole confusion. It kinda really bothers me this patchset is expanding the usage > of the wrong constant with only very far-out plan to fix that. All > archs converting to nobootmem will take a *long* time, that is, if > that happens at all. I don't really care about the order of things > happening but "this is gonna be fixed when everyone moves off > MAX_NUMNODES" really isn't good enough. > Fair enough though the patchset continue to use the constant which is already used by few memblock APIs ;-) If we can fix the __next_free_mem_range() and __next_free_mem_range_rev() to not use MAX_NUMNODES then we can potentially avoid the wrong usage of constant. regards, Santosh -- 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>