On 14.07.2022 12:26, Wei Chen wrote: > Hi Jan, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> >> Sent: 2022年7月14日 17:58 >> To: Wei Chen <[email protected]> >> Cc: nd <[email protected]>; Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>; Roger Pau >> Monné <[email protected]>; Wei Liu <[email protected]>; xen- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] xen/x86: Use enumerations to indicate NUMA >> status >> >>> >>> How about update the table like this: >>> +------------+----------+----------------+----------------+------------+ >>> | original | | | | | >>> +------------+----------+----------------+----------------+------------+ >>> | numa_off | true | true | true | true | >>> | acpi_numa | 0 | 1 | -1 | x | >>> | numa_fake | x | x | x | fake_nodes | >>> | enum state | numa_off | numa_off | numa_off | numa_off | >>> +------------+----------+----------------+----------------+------------+ >>> >>> +------------+----------------+------------+-------------+------------+ >>> | original | | | | | >>> +------------+----------------+------------+-------------+------------+ >>> | numa_off | false | false | false | false | >>> | acpi_numa | 0 | 1 | -1 | x | >>> | numa_fake | x | x | x | fake_nodes | >>> | enum state | numa_fw_nodata | numa_fw_ok | numa_fw_bad | numa_emu | >>> +------------+----------------+------------+-------------+------------+ >> >> Well, this makes the table complete, but it doesn't explain how you mean >> to fold the settings of the two command line options into one variable. >> > > No matter how many separate "numa=" parameters have been parsed from > Command line, the values of these original variables are determined > after parsing the command line. So the determined status can be mapped > to the new one variable from above table.
Hmm, I was partly wrong - the initial values of both variables are indeed set from just the single "numa=" parsing. But later on they "evolve" independently, and multiple "numa=" on the command line can also have "interesting" effects. I'm afraid I still can't convince myself that the new mapping fully represents all originally possible combinations (nor can I convince myself that in the existing code everything is working as intended). Jan
