Subject: [PATCH v7 05/14] arm64/numa: avoid inconsistent information to be printed

From: [email-masked] (Leizhen (ThunderTown))
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 16:54:56 +0800

On 2016/8/26 20:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 03:44:44PM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> numa_init(of_numa_init) may returned error because of numa configuration
>> error. So "No NUMA configuration found" is inaccurate. In fact, specific
>> configuration error information should be immediately printed by the
>> testing branch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhen Lei <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> index 5bb15ea..d97c6e2 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -335,8 +335,10 @@ static int __init numa_init(int (*init_func)(void))
>>  	if (ret < 0)
>>  		return ret;
>>
>> -	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed))
>> +	if (nodes_empty(numa_nodes_parsed)) {
>> +		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
>>  		return -EINVAL;
> 
> Hmm, but dummy_numa_init calls node_set(nid, numa_nodes_parsed) for a
> completely artificial setup, created by adding all memblocks to node 0,
> so this new message will be suppressed even though things really did go
> wrong.
It will be printed by the former: numa_init(of_numa_init)

> 
> In that case, don't we want to print *something* (like we do today in
> dummy_numa_init) but maybe not "No NUMA configuration found"? What
> exactly do you find inaccurate about the current message?
For example:
[    0.000000] NUMA: No distance-matrix property in distance-map
[    0.000000] No NUMA configuration found

So if of_numa_init or arm64_acpi_numa_init returned error, because of
some numa configuration error had been found, it's no good to print "No NUMA ...".

> Will
> .