Hi Greg, On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 08:21:27PM +0200, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled > > x86/mm/numa: Use NUMA_NO_NODE when calling memblock_set_node() > > to the 5.10-stable tree which can be found at: > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary > > The filename of the patch is: > x86-mm-numa-use-numa_no_node-when-calling-memblock_set_node.patch > and it can be found in the queue-5.10 subdirectory. > > If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, > please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. > > > From 3ac36aa7307363b7247ccb6f6a804e11496b2b36 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 09:42:05 +0200 > Subject: x86/mm/numa: Use NUMA_NO_NODE when calling memblock_set_node() > > From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > > commit 3ac36aa7307363b7247ccb6f6a804e11496b2b36 upstream. > > memblock_set_node() warns about using MAX_NUMNODES, see > > e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES") This commit was a fix for e0eec24e2e19, it's not needed for kernels before 6.8. Sorry I didn't note this in the commit log. > for details. > > Reported-by: Narasimhan V <Narasimhan.V@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [bp: commit message] > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov (AMD) <bp@xxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240603141005.23261-1-bp@xxxxxxxxxx > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/abadb736-a239-49e4-ab42-ace7acdd4278@xxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (IBM) <rppt@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/x86/mm/numa.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/numa.c > @@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static void __init numa_clear_kernel_nod > for_each_reserved_mem_region(mb_region) { > int nid = memblock_get_region_node(mb_region); > > - if (nid != MAX_NUMNODES) > + if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) > node_set(nid, reserved_nodemask); > } > > @@ -643,9 +643,9 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_f > nodes_clear(node_online_map); > memset(&numa_meminfo, 0, sizeof(numa_meminfo)); > WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.memory, > - MAX_NUMNODES)); > + NUMA_NO_NODE)); > WARN_ON(memblock_set_node(0, ULLONG_MAX, &memblock.reserved, > - MAX_NUMNODES)); > + NUMA_NO_NODE)); > /* In case that parsing SRAT failed. */ > WARN_ON(memblock_clear_hotplug(0, ULLONG_MAX)); > numa_reset_distance(); > > > Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from jbeulich@xxxxxxxx are > > queue-5.10/x86-mm-numa-use-numa_no_node-when-calling-memblock_set_node.patch -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
