[PATCH RFC 2/5] powerpc:numa Rename functions referring to nid as chipid
Raghavendra K T
raghavendra.kt at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Wed Sep 30 04:31:01 AEST 2015
On 09/28/2015 10:57 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 27.09.2015 [23:59:10 +0530], Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> There is no change in the fuctionality
>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> index d5e6eee..f84ed2f 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/numa.c
>> @@ -235,47 +235,47 @@ static void initialize_distance_lookup_table(int nid,
>> -/* Returns nid in the range [0..MAX_NUMNODES-1], or -1 if no useful numa
>> +/* Returns chipid in the range [0..MAX_NUMNODES-1], or -1 if no useful numa
>> * info is found.
>> -static int associativity_to_nid(const __be32 *associativity)
>> +static int associativity_to_chipid(const __be32 *associativity)
> This is confusing to me. This function is also used by the DLPAR code
> under PowerVM to indicate what node the CPU is on -- not a chip (which I
> don't believe is exposed at all under PowerVM).
should I retain the name nid?
or any suggestions? instead of chipid -> nid which fits both the cases.
or should I rename like nid->vnid something?
>> @@ -1415,7 +1415,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
>> /* Use associativity from first thread for all siblings */
>> vphn_get_associativity(cpu, associativity);
>> - new_nid = associativity_to_nid(associativity);
>> + new_nid = associativity_to_chipid(associativity);
> If you are getting a chipid, shouldn't you be assigning it to a variable
> called 'new_chipid'?
my splitting idea was
1. change nid name in functions to chipid (without changing nid
variable calling that function)
2. rename variables to chipid and assign nid=chipid (1:1 mapping)
3. now let nid = mapped chipid
But I see that it isn't consistent in some places. do you think
merging step 1 and step 2 is okay?
More information about the Linuxppc-dev