Hi Jan, On 2022/5/31 21:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.05.2022 08:25, Wei Chen wrote:@@ -119,20 +125,45 @@ int valid_numa_range(paddr_t start, paddr_t end, nodeid_t node) return 0;
To limit indentation depth, on of the two sides of the conditional can be moved out, by omitting the unnecessary "else". To reduce the diff it may be worthwhile to invert the if() condition, allowing the (then implicit) "else" case to remain (almost) unchanged from the original.- } else { + } + + case INTERLEAVE: + { printk(KERN_ERR - "SRAT: PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") overlaps with PXM %u (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n", - pxm, start, end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]), + "SRAT： PXM %u: (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr") interleaves with PXM %u memblk (%"PRIpaddr"-%"PRIpaddr")\n", + node, nd_start, nd_end, node_to_pxm(memblk_nodeid[i]),Hmm, you have PXM in the log message text, but you still pass "node" as first argument. Since you're touching all these messages, could I ask you to convert all ranges to proper mathematical interval representation? I.e. [start,end) here aiui as the end addresses look to be non-inclusive.
Sorry, I want to confirm with you about this comment again. Now the messages look like:
(XEN) NUMA： PXM 0: (0000000080000000-00000008d8000000) interleaves... So I want to know, is it [0000000080000000-00000008d8000000) or (0000000080000000-00000008d7ffffff) addressed your comment? Literally, I think it's case#1? Thanks, Wei Chen
