lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] arm64: numa: Don't check node against MAX_NUMNODES
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 02:42:32PM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
> When the NUMA nodes are sorted by checking ACPI SRAT (GICC AFFINITY)
> sub-table, it's impossible for acpi_map_pxm_to_node() to return
> any value, which is greater than or equal to MAX_NUMNODES. Lets drop
> the unnecessary check in acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init().
>
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> index fdfecf0991ce..e51535a5f939 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi_numa.c
> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ void __init acpi_numa_gicc_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_gicc_affinity *pa)
> pxm = pa->proximity_domain;
> node = acpi_map_pxm_to_node(pxm);
>
> - if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE || node >= MAX_NUMNODES) {
> + if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE) {
> pr_err("SRAT: Too many proximity domains %d\n", pxm);
> bad_srat();
> return;

This isn't "obviously" correct, but it does look like the way in which
acpi_map_pxm_to_node() allocates nodes in 'nodes_found_map' means that this
check is redundant, so I'll pick it up.

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-19 20:11    [W:0.040 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site