Re: [PATCH 25/37] xen/arm: implement bad_srat for Arm NUMA initialization

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Wei Chen wrote:
> NUMA initialization will parse information from firmware provided
> static resource affinity table (ACPI SRAT or DTB). bad_srat if a
> function that will be used when initialization code encounters
> some unexcepted errors.
> 
> In this patch, we introduce Arm version bad_srat for NUMA common
> initialization code to invoke it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  xen/arch/arm/numa.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/numa.c b/xen/arch/arm/numa.c
> index 3755b01ef4..5209d3de4d 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/numa.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/numa.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>   *
>   */
>  #include <xen/init.h>
> +#include <xen/nodemask.h>
>  #include <xen/numa.h>
>  
>  static uint8_t __read_mostly
> @@ -25,6 +26,12 @@ node_distance_map[MAX_NUMNODES][MAX_NUMNODES] = {
>      { 0 }
>  };
>  
> +__init void bad_srat(void)
> +{
> +    printk(KERN_ERR "NUMA: Firmware SRAT table not used.\n");
> +    fw_numa = -1;
> +}

I realize that the series keeps the "srat" terminology everywhere on DT
too. I wonder if it is worth replacing srat with something like
"numa_distance" everywhere as appropriate. I am adding the x86
maintainers for an opinion.

If you guys prefer to keep srat (if nothing else, it is concise), I am
also OK with keeping srat although it is not technically accurate.