On 9/25/25 2:24 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 24.09.25 20:40, Donet Tom wrote:
register_one_node() and register_node() are small functions.
This patch merges them into a single function named register_node()
to improve code readability.
No functional changes are introduced.
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom <[email protected]>
---
[...]
/**
* unregister_node - unregister a node device
* @node: node going away
@@ -869,7 +842,13 @@ void
register_memory_blocks_under_node_hotplug(int nid, unsigned long
start_pfn,
}
#endif /* CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
-int register_one_node(int nid)
+/*
We can directly convert this to proper kernel doc by using /**
Sure I will add it.
+ * register_node - Setup a sysfs device for a node.
+ * @nid - Node number to use when creating the device.
+ *
+ * Initialize and register the node device.
and briefly describing what the return value means
"Returns 0 on success, ..."
Sure
+ */
+int register_node(int nid)
{
int error;
int cpu;
@@ -880,14 +859,23 @@ int register_one_node(int nid)
return -ENOMEM;
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&node->access_list);
- node_devices[nid] = node;
- error = register_node(node_devices[nid], nid);
+ node->dev.id = nid;
+ node->dev.bus = &node_subsys;
+ node->dev.release = node_device_release;
+ node->dev.groups = node_dev_groups;
+
+ error = device_register(&node->dev);
if (error) {
- node_devices[nid] = NULL;
Wondering why we did have this temporary setting of the node_devices[]
in there. But I cannot immediately spot why it was required.
node_devices[] is used in many places to access node data.
In the previous code, immediately after allocating the node
structure, it was stored in node_devices[]. On error paths, we
were clearing the node structure entry from node_devices[].
With the new code, the node structure is now stored in node_devices[]
only after the device has been registered, and just before calling
register_cpu_under_node(), since node_devices[] is accessed inside
that function.
It is also used outside of node.c, in hugetlb_register_all_nodes() .
Do you think we could use a different mechanism instead of this?
