On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, Yinghai.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:33:00PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>> > +extern int __cpuinit numa_cpu_node(int apicid);
>>
>> cpu or apicid?
>
> Should have been @cpu. Will send a patch to update it.
>
>> > +int __cpuinit numa_cpu_node(int cpu)
>> > +{
>> > + int apicid = early_per_cpu(x86_cpu_to_apicid, cpu);
>> > +
>> > + if (apicid != BAD_APICID)
>> > + return __apicid_to_node[apicid];
>> > + return NUMA_NO_NODE;
>> > +}
>>
>> it should be changed to cpu_to_node_via_apicid(), it could return
>> not onlined node, aka node without memory.
>>
>> So don't mess it up with cpu_to_node()
>
> Hmmm... are you saying that the name is too confusing with
> cpu_to_node() and should be renamed to cpu_to_node_via_apicid()? In
> that case, I agree but wish the name were something which represents
> what it does as _via_apicid postfix doesn't really tell much. Any
> better idea?
yes.
wonder if there is other good name better than cpu_to_node_via_apicid...
Yinghai
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|