Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:28:11AM +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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Looks fine to me, but this doesn't apply against -rc1.

Will

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
> @@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ 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;
> +	}
> 
>  	ret = numa_register_nodes();
>  	if (ret < 0)
> @@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)
> 
>  	if (numa_off)
>  		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
> -	else
> -		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>  	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
>  	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);
> 
> --
> 2.5.0
> 
>