Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-214468-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 10:31:21 +0300
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Narasimhan V <Narasimhan.V@amd.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] memblock:fix validation of NUMA coverage
Message-ID: <Zmvxyc5xguxefBwo@kernel.org>
References: <Zmr9oBecxdufMTeP@kernel.org>
 <CAHk-=wickw1bAqWiMASA2zRiEA_nC3etrndnUqn_6C1tbUjAcQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wgOMcScTviziAbL9Z2RDduaEFdZbHsESxqUS2eFfUmUVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <663e80fc-6785-4ac5-ae74-e5f26d938f49@suse.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <663e80fc-6785-4ac5-ae74-e5f26d938f49@suse.com>

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 08:01:33AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 13.06.2024 19:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 10:09, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there some broken scripting that people have started using (or have
> >> been using for a while and was recently broken)?
> > 
> > ... and then when I actually pull the code, I note that the problem
> > where it checked _one_ bogus value has just been replaced with
> > checking _another_ bogus value.
> > 
> > Christ.
> > 
> > What if people use a node ID that is simply outside the range
> > entirely, instead of one of those special node IDs?
> > 
> > And now for memblock_set_node() you should apparently use NUMA_NO_NODE
> > to not get a warning, but for memblock_set_region_node() apparently
> > the right random constant to use is MAX_NUMNODES.
> > 
> > Does *any* of this make sense? No.
> > 
> > How about instead of having two random constants - and not having any
> > range checking that I see - just have *one* random constant for "I
> > have no range", call that NUMA_NO_NODE,
> 
> Just to mention it - my understanding is that this is an ongoing process
> heading in this very direction. I'm not an mm person at all, so I can't
> tell why the conversion wasn't done / can't be done all in one go.

Nah, it's an historical mess and my oversight.
 
> Jan

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.