On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 07:38 +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote: > > ... nothing Sure this patch looks obvious, but please give me a changelog that proves you've thought about it thoroughly. For example is it OK to use for_each_node() at this point in boot? Is there any historical reason why we did it with a hard coded loop? If so what has changed. What systems have you tested on? etc. etc. cheers > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > index 8b9502a..8d8a541 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c > @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ static void __init setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) > setup_nr_node_ids(); > > /* allocate the map */ > - for (node = 0; node < nr_node_ids; node++) > + for_each_node(node) > alloc_bootmem_cpumask_var(&node_to_cpumask_map[node]); > > /* cpumask_of_node() will now work */ -- 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>