Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:29:45 -0700 | From | David Daney <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 12/14] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT |
| |
On 04/20/2016 01:31 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 20 April 2016 at 09:40, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> wrote: [...] >>> @@ -388,7 +389,9 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void) >>> void __init arm64_numa_init(void) >>> { >>> if (!numa_off) { >>> - if (!numa_init(of_numa_init)) >>> + if (!acpi_disabled && !numa_init(arm64_acpi_numa_init)) >>> + return; >>> + if (acpi_disabled && !numa_init(of_numa_init)) >>> return; >>> } >>> >> On top of the latest version of the dt-based numa patch, if 'numa=off' >> specified in the command line, >> this function will fallback to invoke dummy_numa_init(), which give >> rise the question here is, do we need to >> touch any ACPI related stuff in the case? If not, then the output > > no, ACPI is not fallback configuration for DT and vice versa. > >> message "No NUMA configuration found" followed >> seems is not necessary since it's a little bit confusing in case of >> numa has already been turned off explicitly. > > thanks, this print can be moved out. > from function dummy_numa_init and it can be added in function arm64_numa_init > as a last line of if (!numa_off) to indicate, ACPI/DT based NUMA > configuration failed. > > more appropriate would be, > pr_info("%s\n", "NUMA configuration failed or not found"); >
Although purely cosmetic, I agree that we need to improve the messages as to not confuse people.
I will rework the messages with your suggestions in mind to see if we can get something that is both concise and unambiguously reflects what the user asked for.
David.
| |