Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] xen/x86: move generically usable NUMA code from x86 to common

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07.11.2022 11:09, Wei Chen wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 2022年11月3日 22:26
>> To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: nd <nd@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau
>> Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>; George Dunlap
>> <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>; Stefano
>> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/6] xen/x86: move generically usable NUMA code
>> from x86 to common
>>
>> On 20.10.2022 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
>>> There are some codes in x86/numa.c can be shared by common
>>> architectures to implememnt NUMA support. Just like some
>>> variables and functions to check and store NUMA memory map.
>>> And some variables and functions to do NUMA initialization.
>>>
>>> In this patch, we move them to common/numa.c and xen/numa.h
>>> and use the CONFIG_NUMA to gate them for non-NUMA supported
>>> architectures. As the target header file is Xen-style, so
>>> we trim some spaces and replace tabs for the codes that has
>>> been moved to xen/numa.h at the same time.
>>>
>>> As acpi_scan_nodes has been used in a common function, it
>>> doesn't make sense to use acpi_xxx in common code, so we
>>> rename it to numa_process_nodes in this patch too. After that
>>> if we still use CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA in to gate numa_process_nodes
>>> in numa_initmem_init, that doesn't make sense. As CONFIG_NUMA
>>> will be selected by CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA for x86. So, we replace
>>> CONFIG_ACPI_NUMA by CONFIG_NUMA to gate numa_process_nodes.
>>>
>>> As arch_numa_disabled has been implememnted for ACPI NUMA,
>>> we can rename srat_disabled to numa_disabled and move it
>>> to common code as well.
>>>
>>> The macro node_to_first_cpu(node) hasn't been used anywhere,
>>> so we drop it in this patch too.
>>>
>>> Because some architectures allow to use all 64 physical address
>>> bits, but some architectures are not (like Arm64 allows 52, 48
>>> bits). In this case, we use min(PADDR_BITS, BITS_PER_LONG - 1)
>>> to calculate the shift when only one node is in the system in
>>> this patch too.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Chen <wei.chen@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> with one small further request (could be taken care of also while
>> committing if no other need for a v8 arises):
>>
> 
> Thanks. This series is in merge conflict status now, do I need to
> send a v8 to fix the merge conflict?

Generally yes. While committers _may_ be willing to fix up conflicts,
strictly speaking the committer role ought to be a purely mechanical
one, i.e. not touching patches at all.

> If yes, I will fix above as well, after PATCH#5 be reviewed.

And I've been meaning to get to that one ... Then again this series
can't be committed anyway before 4.17 was branched off.

Jan