Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-203196-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:48:46 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: x86: WARNING: at mm/memblock.c:1339 memblock_set_node - Usage of
 MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
Message-ID: <e220910c-da6e-40ab-895f-87fd43c1de3f@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <CA+G9fYsGFerOtoxwpKLOYcRtyJkmgjdP=qg4Y5iP5q-4Lt17Lg@mail.gmail.com>
 <315d6873-d618-4126-b67a-de62502d7ee2@paulmck-laptop>
 <7d55b65e-331a-4ce2-8f72-d3c5c9e6eae0@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7d55b65e-331a-4ce2-8f72-d3c5c9e6eae0@suse.com>

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:46:37PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.06.2024 21:07, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 07:19:21PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
> >> The following kernel warnings are noticed on x86 devices while booting
> >> the Linux next-20240603 tag and looks like it is expected to warn users to
> >> use NUMA_NO_NODE instead.
> >>
> >> Usage of MAX_NUMNODES is deprecated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE instead
> >>
> >> The following config is enabled
> >> CONFIG_NUMA=y
> > 
> > I am seeing this as well.  Is the following commit premature?
> > 
> > e0eec24e2e19 ("memblock: make memblock_set_node() also warn about use of MAX_NUMNODES")
> > 
> > Maybe old ACPI tables and device trees need to catch up?
> > 
> > Left to myself, I would simply remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() from the above
> > commit, but I would guess that there is a better way.
> 
> Well, the warning is issued precisely to make clear that call
> sites need to change. A patch to do so for the two instances
> on x86 that I'm aware of is already pending maintainer approval.

Could you please point me at that patch so that I can stop repeatedly
reproducing those two particular issues?

							Thanx, Paul