On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
> index 71b11d9..6af873a 100644
> --- a/mm/memblock.c
> +++ b/mm/memblock.c
> @@ -707,11 +707,9 @@ void __init_memblock __next_free_mem_range(u64 *idx, int
> nid,
> struct memblock_type *rsv = &memblock.reserved;
> int mi = *idx & 0xffffffff;
> int ri = *idx >> 32;
> - bool check_node = (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) && (nid != MAX_NUMNODES);
>
> - if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES)
> - pr_warn_once("%s: Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use
> NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n",
> - __func__);
> + if (WARN_ONCE(nid == MAX_NUMNODES, "Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is
> deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead\n"))
> + nid = NUMA_NO_NODE;
>
> for ( ; mi < mem->cnt; mi++) {
> struct memblock_region *m = &mem->regions[mi];
Um, why do this at runtime? This is only used for
for_each_free_mem_range(), which is used rarely in x86 and memblock-only
code. I'm struggling to understand why we can't deterministically fix the
callers if this condition is possible.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
