On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:38 AM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> writes: > > +/** > > + * numa_move_memblk - Move one numa_memblk from one numa_meminfo to another > > + * @dst: numa_meminfo to move block to > > + * @idx: Index of memblk to remove > > + * @src: numa_meminfo to remove memblk from > > + * > > + * If @dst is non-NULL add it at the @dst->nr_blks index and increment > > + * @dst->nr_blks, then remove it from @src. > > This is not correct. It's suggesting that these operations are only > happening when @dst is non-NULL. Remove is unconditional though. > > Also this is called with &numa_reserved_meminfo as @dst argument, which is: > > > +static struct numa_meminfo numa_reserved_meminfo __initdata_numa; > > So how would @dst ever be NULL?
Ugh, something I should have caught. An earlier version of this patch optionally defined numa_reserved_meminfo [1], but I later switched to the current / cleaner __initdata_or_meminfo scheme. Will clean this up. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/157309907296.1582359.7986676987778026949.st...@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-le...@lists.01.org