lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] x86, mm: Clean up initmem_init
On 03/04/2011 12:15 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> This patch cleans initmem_init() so that it is more readable and doesn't
> use an unnecessary array of function pointers to convolute the flow of
> the code. It also makes it obvious that dummy_numa_init() will always
> succeed (and documents that requirement) so that the existing BUG() is
> never actually reached.
>
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/numa_64.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
...
> +void __init initmem_init(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
>
> - if (nid == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> - continue;
> - if (!node_online(nid))
> - numa_clear_node(j);
> - }
> - numa_init_array();
> - return;
> + if (!numa_off) {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA
> + ret = numa_init(x86_acpi_numa_init);
> + if (!ret)
> + return;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_AMD_NUMA
> + ret = numa_init(amd_numa_init);
> + if (!ret)
> + return;
> +#endif
> }
> - BUG();
> +
> + numa_init(dummy_numa_init);
> }
>
> unsigned long __init numa_free_all_bootmem(void)

Divid, I suspect it's due to diff format and we still need "ret" here, right?

--
Cyrill


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-03 22:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans