Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965594AbcCJKLr (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:11:47 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:33431 "EHLO mail-pf0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965611AbcCJKKU (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:10:20 -0500 Message-ID: <56E14802.8040500@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:10:10 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Richter , Hanjun Guo CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ganapatrao Kulkarni , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Shannon Zhao , Steve Capper , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/12] arm64, numa: rework numa_add_memblk() References: <1453541967-3744-1-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <1453541967-3744-9-git-send-email-guohanjun@huawei.com> <20160309122744.GD1535@rric.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20160309122744.GD1535@rric.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2443 Lines: 72 Hi Robert, On 03/09/2016 08:27 PM, Robert Richter wrote: > On 23.01.16 17:39:23, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> From: Hanjun Guo >> >> Rework numa_add_memblk() to update the parameter "u64 size" >> to "u64 end", this will make it consistent with x86 and >> can simplify the code later. >> >> Updates for arch/arm64/mm/numa.c should squash to core NUMA >> patches from Ganapat. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c | 2 +- >> arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c >> index 2f9e34b..aa6f3a3 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/of_numa.c >> @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ static int __init early_init_parse_memory_node(unsigned long node) >> pr_debug("NUMA-DT: base = %llx , node = %u\n", >> base, nid); >> >> - if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, size) < 0) >> + if (numa_add_memblk(nid, base, base + size) < 0) >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >> index e974995..2b04b8a 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c >> @@ -137,25 +137,25 @@ void numa_store_cpu_info(unsigned int cpu) >> * numa_add_memblk - Set node id to memblk >> * @nid: NUMA node ID of the new memblk >> * @start: Start address of the new memblk >> - * @size: Size of the new memblk >> + * @end: End address of the new memblk > > Apart from my earlier comment, this is not exactly correct and may > cause confussion. The implementation here defines: > > size == end - start > > which is different to struct resource, where: > > resource_size(res) == res->end - res->start + 1 > > Thus, @end here is the first address outside of memblk. > > This is one more argument for keeping @size here. I agree :) I'm working on the new version and met the problem of no definition for numa_add_memblk() and numa_set_distance() on IA64, numa_set_distance() seems to easy to add one for IA64, but numa_add_memblk() is not, this will the blocker for moving functions to common place, what's your opinion here? Also I'm thinking to move all the code in arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c to the arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c to make the ACPI code in ARM64 self-contained, what do you think? Thanks Hanjun