* Michael Ellerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-18 16:44:58]:
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:34 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-12-08 at 04:07 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > > Changelog
> > >
> > > 1. Get rid of the constant 5 (based on comments from
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > > 2. Implement suggestions from Olof Johannson
> > > 3. Check if cmdline is NULL in fake_numa_create_new_node()
> > >
> > > Tested with additional parameters from Olof
> > >
> > > numa=debug,fake=
> > > numa=foo,fake=bar
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure why yet, but git bisect tells me it's this patch that's
> > causing the for-2.6.25 tree to explode on boot on cell machines.
>
> This fixes it, although I'm a little worried about some of the
> removals/movings of node_set_online() in the patch.
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index 1666e7d..dcedc26 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,6 @@ static int __cpuinit fake_numa_create_new_node(unsigned
> long end_pfn,
> static unsigned int fake_nid = 0;
> static unsigned long long curr_boundary = 0;
>
> - *nid = fake_nid;
> if (!p)
> return 0;
>
> @@ -60,6 +59,7 @@ static int __cpuinit fake_numa_create_new_node(unsigned
> long end_pfn,
> if (mem < curr_boundary)
> return 0;
>
> + *nid = fake_nid;
> curr_boundary = mem;
>
> if ((end_pfn << PAGE_SHIFT) > mem) {
>
This patch makes sense, ideally fake_numa_create_new_node() should
just be a no-op in the case of machines with real NUMA nodes.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
