Re: [PATCH 1/2] drivers/base/node: merge register_one_node() and register_node() to a single function.

[Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>]

On 9/25/25 3:04 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:54:07AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 24.09.25 20:40, Donet Tom wrote:
>>> register_one_node() and register_node() are small functions.
>>> This patch merges them into a single function named register_node()
>>> to improve code readability.
>>>
>>> No functional changes are introduced.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>> [...]
>>
>>>    /**
>>>     * unregister_node - unregister a node device
>>>     * @node: node going away
>>> @@ -869,7 +842,13 @@ void register_memory_blocks_under_node_hotplug(int nid, unsigned long start_pfn,
>>>    }
>>>    #endif /* CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG */
>>> -int register_one_node(int nid)
>>> +/*
>> We can directly convert this to proper kernel doc by using /**
>>
>>> + * register_node - Setup a sysfs device for a node.
>>> + * @nid - Node number to use when creating the device.
>>> + *
>>> + * Initialize and register the node device.
>> and briefly describing what the return value means
>>
>> "Returns 0 on success, ..."
> For kernel-doc it should be
>
> Return: 0 on success, ...
>

Sure I will change it.


>
>>> + */
>>> +int register_node(int nid)
>>>    {
>>>    	int error;
>>>    	int cpu;
>>> @@ -880,14 +859,23 @@ int register_one_node(int nid)
>>>    		return -ENOMEM;
>>>    	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&node->access_list);
>>> -	node_devices[nid] = node;
>>> -	error = register_node(node_devices[nid], nid);
>>> +	node->dev.id = nid;
>>> +	node->dev.bus = &node_subsys;
>>> +	node->dev.release = node_device_release;
>>> +	node->dev.groups = node_dev_groups;
>>> +
>>> +	error = device_register(&node->dev);
>>>    	if (error) {
>>> -		node_devices[nid] = NULL;
>> Wondering why we did have this temporary setting of the node_devices[] in
>> there. But I cannot immediately spot why it was required.
> register_cpu_under_node() references node_devices, so that assignment can
> be moved just before the loop that adds CPUs to node.


Sure.

Thank you


>   
>> -- 
>> Cheers
>>
>> David / dhildenb
>>