On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:03:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:30:57AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote: >> max_emu_nid and dfl_phys_nid is calculated from emu_nid_to_phys[], which is >> calculated in split_nodes_xxx_interleave(). From the logic in these > >$ git grep split_nodes_xxx_interleave >$ > >> functions, it is assured the emu_nid_to_phys[] has meaningful value if it >> return successfully and ensures dfl_phys_nid will get a valid value. >> >> This patch removes the error branch to check invalid dfl_phys_nid and > >So the check doesn't hurt anyone. > >On the contrary - it is an "assertion" of sorts in otherwise complex >code and actually documents the fact that by then emu_nid_to_phys[] >needs to be setup properly. > >And it is especially useful if someone decides to change that code in >the future, for whatever reason, and gets to hit that check - it'll even >be helpful in that case. > >So I'd vote for keeping that check and not doing anything. > >While we're at it, never say "this patch" in a commit message - that is >tautologically obvious. >
Hi, Borislav Thanks for your comment, I will this in my mind. >-- >Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > >ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. >-- -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature