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

[Leizhen (ThunderTown)]

On 2016/6/3 17:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> 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.

Oh,

These patched based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679 series.

> 
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> .
>