From: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:42:48 -0800
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 03:41:10 am David Miller wrote:
> > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:21:46 +0100
> >
> > >
> > > * Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > struct sk_buff *__netdev_alloc_skb(struct net_device *dev,
> > > > unsigned int length, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > > > {
> > > > - int node = dev->dev.parent ? dev_to_node(dev->dev.parent) : -1;
> > > > + int node = dev_to_node(&dev->dev);
> > >
> > > i think this is a fix for the networking folks. (Dave Cc:-ed)
> >
> > It keeps getting NAK's because it's wrong.
> >
> > The author of the patch hasn't convinced folks why this is really
> > necessary, and using the net_device embedded device struct is
> > definitely wrong here. It doesn't contain the NUMA node information,
> > the physical device does, and that is what the parent it.
>
> can you check the 5/8?
> that will make sure every struct device get numa_node get assigned.
Why do we need to bother with that if the parent will have the
necessary information for us here?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
