Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 05/14] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed | From | "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <> | Date | Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:54:56 +0800 |
| |
On 2016/8/26 20:47, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:44PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote: >> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration >> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific >> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the >> testing branch. >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen@huawei.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++--- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >> index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void)) >> if (ret < 0) >> return ret; >> >> - if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) >> + if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) { >> + pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n"); >> return -EINVAL; > > Hmm, but dummy_numa_init calls node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) for a > completely artificial setup, created by adding all memblocks to node 0, > so this new message will be suppressed even though things really did go > wrong. It will be printed by the former: numa_init(of_numa_init)
> > In that case, don't we want to print *something* (like we do today in > dummy_numa_init) but maybe not "No NUMA configuration found"? What > exactly do you find inaccurate about the current message? For example: [ 0.000000] NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map [ 0.000000] No NUMA configuration found
So if of_numa_init or arm64_acpi_numa_init returned error, because of some numa configuration error had been found, it's no good to print "No NUMA ...".
> > Will > > . >
| |