On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:06:54 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@xxxxxx> wrote: > >nid-04: > > > >* Isn't #define numa_mem numa_node a bit dangerous? Someone might use > > numa_mem as a local variable name. Why not define it as a inline > > function or at least a macro which takes argument. > > numa_mem and numa_node are the names of the per cpu variables, referenced > by __this_cpu_read(). So, I suppose we can rename them both something like: > percpu_numa_*. Would satisfy your concern? > > What do others think? > > Currently I've left them as numa_mem and numa_node. > Could you add some documentation to Documentation/vm/numa ? about numa_node_id() numa_mem_id() topics on memory-less node (cpu-less node) Recently I see this kind of topics on list but I'm not sure whether I catch the issues/changes correctly.... Thanks, -Kame -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-numa" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
