On 2016/6/3 17:55, Will Deacon wrote:

On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 10:28:11AM +0800, Zhen Lei wrote:

quoted

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 <redacted>
---
 arch/arm64/mm/numa.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Looks fine to me, but this doesn't apply against -rc1.

Oh,

These patched based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/24/679 series.

Will

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
index 2601660..1b9622c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/numa.c

@@ -338,8 +338,10 @@ 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;
+	}

 	ret = numa_register_nodes();
 	if (ret < 0)

@@ -370,8 +372,6 @@ static int __init dummy_numa_init(void)

 	if (numa_off)
 		pr_info("NUMA disabled\n"); /* Forced off on command line. */
-	else
-		pr_info("No NUMA configuration found\n");
 	pr_info("NUMA: Faking a node at [mem %#018Lx-%#018Lx]\n",
 	       0LLU, PFN_PHYS(max_pfn) - 1);

--

2.5.0

.