From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757257AbZDAFbt (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:31:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751921AbZDAFbk (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:31:40 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:55455 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751555AbZDAFbj (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:31:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090331.223128.143365884.davem@davemloft.net> To: tj@kernel.org CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Inverted NUMA test in setup_pcpu_remap()? From: David Miller X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org The test currently is: if (!cpu_has_pse || pcpu_need_numa()) return -EINVAL; Don't we really mean "!pcpu_need_numa()"? The way I read the intent, setup_pcpu_remap() should be used in the NUMA case. But that's not what's happening because of how this test is coded. In fact, the test here is identical to the one used in setup_pcpu_embed()