From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f177.google.com (mail-qc0-f177.google.com [209.85.216.177]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FC86B0031 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:48:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qc0-f177.google.com with SMTP id m20so2550751qcx.8 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:48:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from comal.ext.ti.com (comal.ext.ti.com. [198.47.26.152]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v3si6757379qat.53.2013.12.14.11.48.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:48:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52ACB608.3050802@ti.com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:48:24 -0500 From: Santosh Shilimkar MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/23] mm/memblock: Add memblock memory allocation apis References: <1386625856-12942-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1386625856-12942-9-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20131213213735.GM27070@htj.dyndns.org> <52ABABDA.4020808@ti.com> <20131214110844.GB17954@htj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20131214110844.GB17954@htj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Tejun Heo Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Yinghai Lu , Andrew Morton , "Strashko, Grygorii" On Saturday 14 December 2013 06:08 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Santosh. > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:52:42PM -0500, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>> +static void * __init memblock_virt_alloc_internal( >>>> + phys_addr_t size, phys_addr_t align, >>>> + phys_addr_t min_addr, phys_addr_t max_addr, >>>> + int nid) >>>> +{ >>>> + phys_addr_t alloc; >>>> + void *ptr; >>>> + >>>> + if (nid == MAX_NUMNODES) >>>> + pr_warn("%s: usage of MAX_NUMNODES is depricated. Use NUMA_NO_NODE\n", >>>> + __func__); >>> >>> Why not use WARN_ONCE()? Also, shouldn't nid be set to NUMA_NO_NODE >>> here? >>> >> You want all the users using MAX_NUMNODES to know about it so that >> the wrong usage can be fixed. WARN_ONCE will hide that. > > Well, it doesn't really help anyone to be printing multiple messages > without any info on who was the caller and if this thing is gonna be > in mainline triggering of the warning should be rare anyway. It's > more of a tool to gather one-off cases in the wild. WARN_ONCE() > usually is the better choice as otherwise the warnings can swamp the > machine and console output in certain cases. > Fair enough. >>> ... >>>> + if (nid != NUMA_NO_NODE) { >>> >>> Otherwise, the above test is broken. >>> >> So the idea was just to warn the users and allow them to fix >> the code. Well we are just allowing the existing users of using >> either MAX_NUMNODES or NUMA_NO_NODE continue to work. Thats what >> we discussed, right ? > > Huh? Yeah, sure. You're testing @nid against MAX_NUMNODES at the > beginning of the function. If it's MAX_NUMNODES, you print a warning > but nothing else, so the if() conditional above, which should succeed, > would fail. Am I missing sth here? > I get it now. Sorry I missed your point in first part. We will fix this. Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org