Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Sep 2015 00:01:01 +0530 | From | Raghavendra K T <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] powerpc:numa Rename functions referring to nid as chipid |
| |
On 09/28/2015 10:57 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > On 27.09.2015 [23:59:10 +0530], Raghavendra K T wrote: >> There is no change in the fuctionality >> >> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c >> index d5e6eee..f84ed2f 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c >> @@ -235,47 +235,47 @@ static void initialize_distance_lookup_table(int nid, >> } >> } >> >> -/* Returns nid in the range [0..MAX_NUMNODES-1], or -1 if no useful numa >> +/* Returns chipid in the range [0..MAX_NUMNODES-1], or -1 if no useful numa >> * info is found. >> */ >> -static int associativity_to_nid(const __be32 *associativity) >> +static int associativity_to_chipid(const __be32 *associativity) > > This is confusing to me. This function is also used by the DLPAR code > under PowerVM to indicate what node the CPU is on -- not a chip (which I > don't believe is exposed at all under PowerVM). >
Good point.
should I retain the name nid? or any suggestions? instead of chipid -> nid which fits both the cases. or should I rename like nid->vnid something? [...] >> @@ -1415,7 +1415,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void) >> >> /* Use associativity from first thread for all siblings */ >> vphn_get_associativity(cpu, associativity); >> - new_nid = associativity_to_nid(associativity); >> + new_nid = associativity_to_chipid(associativity); > > If you are getting a chipid, shouldn't you be assigning it to a variable > called 'new_chipid'?
yes perhaps. my splitting idea was 1. change nid name in functions to chipid (without changing nid variable calling that function) 2. rename variables to chipid and assign nid=chipid (1:1 mapping) 3. now let nid = mapped chipid
But I see that it isn't consistent in some places. do you think merging step 1 and step 2 is okay?
| |