Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] powerpc:numa Rename functions referring to nid as chipid

[Raghavendra K T]

On 09/28/2015 10:57 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.09.2015 [23:59:10 +0530], Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > There is no change in the fuctionality
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > index d5e6eee..f84ed2f 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> > @@ -235,47 +235,47 @@ static void initialize_distance_lookup_table(int nid,
> >   	}
> >   }
> >
> > -/* Returns nid in the range [0..MAX_NUMNODES-1], or -1 if no useful numa
> > +/* Returns chipid in the range [0..MAX_NUMNODES-1], or -1 if no useful numa
> >    * info is found.
> >    */
> > -static int associativity_to_nid(const __be32 *associativity)
> > +static int associativity_to_chipid(const __be32 *associativity)
>
> This is confusing to me. This function is also used by the DLPAR code
> under PowerVM to indicate what node the CPU is on -- not a chip (which I
> don't believe is exposed at all under PowerVM).

Good point.

should I retain the name nid?
or any suggestions? instead of chipid -> nid which fits both the cases.
or should I rename like nid->vnid  something?
[...]
> > @@ -1415,7 +1415,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> >
> >   		/* Use associativity from first thread for all siblings */
> >   		vphn_get_associativity(cpu, associativity);
> > -		new_nid = associativity_to_nid(associativity);
> > +		new_nid = associativity_to_chipid(associativity);
>
> If you are getting a chipid, shouldn't you be assigning it to a variable
> called 'new_chipid'?

yes perhaps.
my splitting idea was
1. change nid name in functions to chipid (without changing nid
variable calling that function)
2. rename variables to chipid and assign nid=chipid (1:1 mapping)
3. now let nid = mapped chipid

But I see that it isn't consistent in some places. do you think
merging step 1 and step 2 is okay?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/