On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 71b11d9..6af873a 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -707,11 +707,9 @@ void __init_memblock __next_free_mem_range(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__);
> + if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
> + nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>
> for ( ; mi < mem->cnt; mi++) {
> struct memblock_region *m = &mem->regions[mi];
Um, why do this at runtime? This is only used for
for_each_free_mem_range(), which is used rarely in x86 and memblock-only
code. I'm struggling to understand why we can't deterministically fix the
callers if this condition is possible.
--
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>