Re: [GIT PULL] memblock:fix validation of NUMA coverage

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

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.