On Fri, 23 Jan 2015, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_node *rtpn;
> struct mem_cgroup_tree_per_zone *rtpz;
> - int tmp, node, zone;
> + int node, zone;
>
> for_each_node(node) {
Do for_each_online_node(node) {
instead?
> - tmp = node;
> - if (!node_state(node, N_NORMAL_MEMORY))
> - tmp = -1;
> - rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, tmp);
> + rtpn = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*rtpn), GFP_KERNEL, node);
> BUG_ON(!rtpn);
>
> soft_limit_tree.rb_tree_per_node[node] = rtpn;
>
> --
>
> Is the assumption of this patch wrong? Does the specified node have
> to be online for the fallback to work?
>
> Thanks
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
