lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: get_nid_for_pfn() returns int
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:59:19 -0800 Gary Hade <garyhade@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:36:28PM +0100, Roel Kluin wrote:
> > get_nid_for_pfn() returns int
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > vi drivers/base/node.c +256
> > static int get_nid_for_pfn(unsigned long pfn)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/node.c b/drivers/base/node.c
> > index 43fa90b..f8f578a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/node.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/node.c
> > @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ int unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes(struct memory_block *mem_blk)
> > sect_start_pfn = section_nr_to_pfn(mem_blk->phys_index);
> > sect_end_pfn = sect_start_pfn + PAGES_PER_SECTION - 1;
> > for (pfn = sect_start_pfn; pfn <= sect_end_pfn; pfn++) {
> > - unsigned int nid;
> > + int nid;
> >
> > nid = get_nid_for_pfn(pfn);
> > if (nid < 0)
>
> My mistake. Good catch.
>

Presumably the (nid < 0) case has never happened.

Should we retain the test?

Is silently skipping the node in that case desirable behaviour?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-27 07:49    [W:1.569 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site