Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1411770 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-02 04:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-06-06 04:10 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> - 2016-06-02 04:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-06-03 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> - 2016-06-06 04:10 +0200
| From | Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 04:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed |
| Message-ID | <rFqyu-8tG-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
testing branch.
Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
---
arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
@@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
- if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
+ if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
+ pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
return -EINVAL;
+ }
ret = numa_register_nodes();
if (ret < 0)
@@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
if (numa_off)
pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
- else
- pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
--
2.5.0
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 12:00 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed |
| Message-ID | <rFU3x-1wB-45@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1411770 |
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:28:11AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
> testing branch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Looks fine to me, but this doesn't apply against -rc1.
Will
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> ret = numa_register_nodes();
> if (ret < 0)
> @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
>
> if (numa_off)
> pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
> - else
> - pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
> pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
> 0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
>
> --
> 2.5.0
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 04:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed |
| Message-ID | <rGS9j-6qo-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1413001 |
On 2016/6/3 17:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:28:11AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
>> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
>> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
>> testing branch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> Looks fine to me, but this doesn't apply against -rc1.
Oh,
These patched based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679 series.
>
> Will
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>> if (ret < 0)
>> return ret;
>>
>> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
>> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
>> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>>
>> ret = numa_register_nodes();
>> if (ret < 0)
>> @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
>>
>> if (numa_off)
>> pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
>> - else
>> - pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>> pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
>> 0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
>>
>> --
>> 2.5.0
>>
>>
>
> .
>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web