On 12/27/2013 01:45 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, It's not so simple as from first look :(
We've modified __next_free_mem_range_x() functions which are part of
Memblock APIs (like memblock_alloc_xxx()) and Nobootmem APIs.
These APIs are used as directly as indirectly (as part of callbacks from
other MM modules like Sparse), as result, it's not trivial to identify
all places where MAX_NUMNODES will be used as input parameter.
Same was discussed here in details:
- [PATCH v2 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/2/1075
- Re: [PATCH 09/24] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/12/2/907
Regards,
- grygorii
--
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/
