Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64/numa: export memory_add_physaddr_to_nid as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-07-07 11:55:00
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml, nvdimm
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-07-07 11:55:00
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml, nvdimm
On Tue 07-07-20 13:59:15, Jia He wrote:
This exports memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() for module driver to use. memory_add_physaddr_to_nid() is a fallback option to get the nid in case NUMA_NO_NID is detected. Suggested-by: David Hildenbrand <redacted> Signed-off-by: Jia He <redacted> --- arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c index aafcee3e3f7e..7eeb31740248 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c@@ -464,10 +464,11 @@ void __init arm64_numa_init(void) /* * We hope that we will be hotplugging memory on nodes we already know about, - * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds and we never fall back to this... + * such that acpi_get_node() succeeds. But when SRAT is not present, the node + * id may be probed as NUMA_NO_NODE by acpi, Here provide a fallback option. */ int memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(u64 addr) { - pr_warn("Unknown node for memory at 0x%llx, assuming node 0\n", addr); return 0; } +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memory_add_physaddr_to_nid);
Does it make sense to export a noop function? Wouldn't make more sense to simply make it static inline somewhere in a header? I haven't checked whether there is an easy way to do that sanely bu this just hit my eyes. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel