[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 02/24] x86: NUMA: Clean up: Fix coding styles and drop unused code

Hi Vijay,

On 20/07/17 08:00, Vijay Kilari wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Vijay,

On 18/07/17 12:41, vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

From: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

Fix coding style, trailing spaces, tabs in NUMA code.
Also drop unused macros and functions.
There is no functional change.

Signed-off-by: Vijaya Kumar K <Vijaya.Kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
v3: - Change commit message
    - Changed VIRTUAL_BUG_ON to ASSERT

Looking at the commit message you don't mention any renaming...

    - Dropped useless inner paranthesis for some macros


diff --git a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
index 3cf26c2..c0de57b 100644
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/numa.h
@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
-#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
+#ifndef _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H
 #define _ASM_X8664_NUMA_H 1

 #include <xen/cpumask.h>


I don't understand why this suddenly appears in the code when you moved away
in patch #1 in xen/numa.h.

Particularly MAX_NUMNODES required by this header file with this
patch changes for compilation.
Though I can include xen/numa.h here but xen/numa.h is including
asm/numa.h back.

I will add separate patch for this defines movement and drop from
this patch.

Why adding a separate patch? The code should not have been moved away in patch #1 as you did.

But I still don't understand what is the exact error here... If it fails on this patch, likely this should have failed after applying patch #1. And *all* patch should be able to build without the rest of the series.


Julien Grall

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.