On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 08:01:33AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.06.2024 19:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 at 10:09, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Is there some broken scripting that people have started using (or have been using for a while and was recently broken)?
... and then when I actually pull the code, I note that the problem where it checked _one_ bogus value has just been replaced with checking _another_ bogus value.
Christ.
What if people use a node ID that is simply outside the range entirely, instead of one of those special node IDs?
And now for memblock_set_node() you should apparently use NUMA_NO_NODE to not get a warning, but for memblock_set_region_node() apparently the right random constant to use is MAX_NUMNODES.
Does *any* of this make sense? No.
How about instead of having two random constants - and not having any range checking that I see - just have *one* random constant for "I have no range", call that NUMA_NO_NODE,
Just to mention it - my understanding is that this is an ongoing process heading in this very direction. I'm not an mm person at all, so I can't tell why the conversion wasn't done / can't be done all in one go.
Nah, it's an historical mess and my oversight.
Jan