Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:33:50 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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?
| |