Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] powerpc:numa create 1:1 mappaing between chipid and nid

From: Nishanth Aravamudan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:35:29 -0700

On 27.09.2015 [23:59:11 +0530], Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Once we have made the distinction between nid and chipid
> create a 1:1 mapping between them. This makes compacting the
> nids easy later.
> 
> No functionality change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> index f84ed2f..dd2073b 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
> @@ -264,6 +264,17 @@ out:
>  	return chipid;
>  }
> 
> +
> + /* Return the nid from associativity */
> +static int associativity_to_nid(const __be32 *associativity)
> +{
> +	int nid;
> +
> +	nid = associativity_to_chipid(associativity);
> +	return nid;
> +}

This is ultimately confusing. You are assigning the semantic return
value of a chipid to a nid -- is it a nid or a chipid? Shouldn't the
variable naming be consistent?