Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 4 Oct 2021 21:07:30 +0200
From:   Krzysztof =?utf-8?Q?Wilczy=C5=84ski?= <kw@linux.com>
To:     Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        hch@infradead.org, stefanha@redhat.com, oren@nvidia.com,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] PCI/sysfs: use NUMA_NO_NODE macro
Message-ID: <YVtQ8ummGgG9AOZE@rocinante>
References: <20211003091344.718-1-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
 <20211003091344.718-2-mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>
 <YVpctu416oj5gZ2i@rocinante>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YVpctu416oj5gZ2i@rocinante>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Max,

[...]
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > -	mask = (dev_to_node(dev) == -1) ? cpu_online_mask :
> > -					  cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev));
> > +	mask = (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) ? cpu_online_mask :
> > +				cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev));
> 
> Oh this somewhat awkward indentation we have with this ternary now,
> and so I wonder if either:
> 
> 	mask = (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE) ?
> 		cpu_online_mask : cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev));
> 
> Or, perhaps (yes, a few more lines):
> 
> 	if (dev_to_node(dev) == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> 		mask = cpu_online_mask;
> 	else
> 		mask = cpumask_of_node(node);

Doh!  I should be cpumask_of_node(dev_to_node(dev)) in the above, of
course.  Apologies!  Albeit, v3 you sent looks great!  Thank you!

	Krzysztof