Re: [PATCH v5 12/14] arm64, acpi, numa: NUMA support based on SRAT and SLIT

[David Daney]

On 04/20/2016 01:31 AM, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Dennis Chen <dennis.chen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 20 April 2016 at 09:40, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx> 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.