On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:50:40PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> + pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n",
> + __func__);
Why not just use WARN_ONCE()? We'd want to know who the caller is
anyway. Also, wouldn't something like the following simpler?
if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, blah blah))
nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> @@ -768,6 +773,11 @@ void __init_memblock __next_free_mem_range_rev(u64 *idx, int nid,
> struct memblock_type *rsv = &memblock.reserved;
> int mi = *idx & 0xffffffff;
> int ri = *idx >> 32;
> + bool check_node = (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (nid != MAX_NUMNODES);
> +
> + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> + pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n",
> + __func__);
Ditto.
Provided the patch is tested on an actual NUMA setup.
Reviwed-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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>