Rename nb_numa_nodes to num_numa_nodes

hw/i386/pc.c +2 -0

index 12472c6..cdefafe 100644
@@ -1121,6 +1121,18 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     guest_info->ram_size = below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size;
     guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus);
     guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override();
+    /* No support for sparse NUMA node IDs yet: */
+    for (i = max_numa_nodeid - 1; i >= 0; i--) {

hw/i386/pc.c +0 -0

     guest_info->numa_nodes = num_numa_nodes;
     guest_info->node_mem = g_malloc0(guest_info->numa_nodes *
                                     sizeof *guest_info->node_mem);

numa.c +0 -0

index 5930df0..a689e52 100644

numa.c +4 -0

+                do {
+                    j = (j + 1) % (max_numa_nodeid);
+                } while (!numa_info[j].present);
+                set_bit(i, numa_info[j].node_cpu);
             }
         }
     }

As suggested by Eduardo Habkost, rename nb_numa_nodes to num_numa_nodes throughout the code, as that reflects the use of the variable more clearly.

Signed-off-by Nishanth Aravamudan <[email protected]>

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
[...]

Quoted 14 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

index 12472c6..cdefafe 100644
@@ -1121,6 +1121,18 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     guest_info->ram_size = below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size;
     guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus);
     guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override();
+    /* No support for sparse NUMA node IDs yet: */
+    for (i = max_numa_nodeid - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+        /* Report large node IDs first, to make mistakes easier to spot */
+        if (!numa_info[i].present) {
+            error_report("numa: Node ID missing: %d", i);
+            exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

hw/i386/pc.c PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size, · line 1135

Quoted 6 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

+        }
+    }
+
+    /* This must be always true if all nodes are present */
+    assert(num_numa_nodes == max_numa_nodeid);
+

I wonder if there's a better place where we could put this check.

Quoted 3 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +0 -0

     guest_info->numa_nodes = num_numa_nodes;
     guest_info->node_mem = g_malloc0(guest_info->numa_nodes *
                                     sizeof *guest_info->node_mem);

[...]

Quoted 4 lines

numa.c +0 -0

index 5930df0..a689e52 100644

[...]

numa.c void set_numa_nodes(void) · line 224

Quoted 9 lines

numa.c +2 -3

@@ -225,9 +220,12 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
          * must cope with this anyway, because there are BIOSes out there in
          * real machines which also use this scheme.
          */
-        if (i == num_numa_nodes) {
-            for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
-                set_bit(i, numa_info[i % num_numa_nodes].node_cpu);
+        if (i == max_numa_nodeid) {
+            for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {

Doesn't j need to be initialized to -1, here?

Except for that, patch looks good to me. But I would be more comfortable with it if we had automated tests to help ensure we are not breaking compatibility of existing NUMA command-line conbinations with these changes.

Quoted 16 lines · Eduardo Habkost

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
[...]

Quoted 14 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

index 12472c6..cdefafe 100644
@@ -1121,6 +1121,18 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     guest_info->ram_size = below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size;
     guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus);
     guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override();
+    /* No support for sparse NUMA node IDs yet: */
+    for (i = max_numa_nodeid - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+        /* Report large node IDs first, to make mistakes easier to spot */
+        if (!numa_info[i].present) {
+            error_report("numa: Node ID missing: %d", i);
+            exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

Quoted 8 lines

hw/i386/pc.c PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size, · line 1135

Quoted 6 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

+        }
+    }
+
+    /* This must be always true if all nodes are present */
+    assert(num_numa_nodes == max_numa_nodeid);
+

I wonder if there's a better place where we could put this check.

Well, only i386 and ppc support NUMA, afaict. So I'm not sure where it makes sense to put it. I guess we could have a flag that the architectures set that indicates sparse NUMA support or not, and put this in the generic code.

Or do you mean putting this check somewhere else in the PC init code?

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 4 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +0 -0

     guest_info->numa_nodes = num_numa_nodes;
     guest_info->node_mem = g_malloc0(guest_info->numa_nodes *
                                     sizeof *guest_info->node_mem);

[...]

Quoted 4 lines

numa.c +0 -0

index 5930df0..a689e52 100644

[...]

Quoted 11 lines

numa.c void set_numa_nodes(void) · line 224

Quoted 9 lines

numa.c +2 -3

@@ -225,9 +220,12 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
          * must cope with this anyway, because there are BIOSes out there in
          * real machines which also use this scheme.
          */
-        if (i == num_numa_nodes) {
-            for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
-                set_bit(i, numa_info[i % num_numa_nodes].node_cpu);
+        if (i == max_numa_nodeid) {
+            for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {

Doesn't j need to be initialized to -1, here?

Arrgh, sorry had been messing with your suggestion to use a while loop. You're right, it needs to be -1 here.

Quoted 4 lines

Except for that, patch looks good to me. But I would be more comfortable with it if we had automated tests to help ensure we are not breaking compatibility of existing NUMA command-line conbinations with these changes.

Is that the test target in the qemu source? Are there examples of any such NUMA tests already?

Quoted 31 lines · Nishanth Aravamudan

Quoted 16 lines · Eduardo Habkost

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
[...]

Quoted 14 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

index 12472c6..cdefafe 100644
@@ -1121,6 +1121,18 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     guest_info->ram_size = below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size;
     guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus);
     guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override();
+    /* No support for sparse NUMA node IDs yet: */
+    for (i = max_numa_nodeid - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+        /* Report large node IDs first, to make mistakes easier to spot */
+        if (!numa_info[i].present) {
+            error_report("numa: Node ID missing: %d", i);
+            exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

Quoted 8 lines

hw/i386/pc.c PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size, · line 1135

Quoted 6 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

+        }
+    }
+
+    /* This must be always true if all nodes are present */
+    assert(num_numa_nodes == max_numa_nodeid);
+

I wonder if there's a better place where we could put this check.

Well, only i386 and ppc support NUMA, afaict. So I'm not sure where it makes sense to put it. I guess we could have a flag that the architectures set that indicates sparse NUMA support or not, and put this in the generic code.

Quoted 1 line

Or do you mean putting this check somewhere else in the PC init code?

I mean somewhere else in the PC init code. But as today the code that calls pc_guest_info_init() and pc_memory_init() is duplicated in both pc_piix.c and pc_q35.c, this looks like the best place we have.

Quoted 29 lines

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 3 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +0 -0

     guest_info->numa_nodes = num_numa_nodes;
     guest_info->node_mem = g_malloc0(guest_info->numa_nodes *
                                     sizeof *guest_info->node_mem);

[...]

Quoted 4 lines

numa.c +0 -0

index 5930df0..a689e52 100644

[...]

Quoted 11 lines

numa.c void set_numa_nodes(void) · line 224

Quoted 9 lines

numa.c +2 -3

@@ -225,9 +220,12 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
          * must cope with this anyway, because there are BIOSes out there in
          * real machines which also use this scheme.
          */
-        if (i == num_numa_nodes) {
-            for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
-                set_bit(i, numa_info[i % num_numa_nodes].node_cpu);
+        if (i == max_numa_nodeid) {
+            for (i = 0, j = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {

Doesn't j need to be initialized to -1, here?

Arrgh, sorry had been messing with your suggestion to use a while loop. You're right, it needs to be -1 here.

Quoted 4 lines

Except for that, patch looks good to me. But I would be more comfortable with it if we had automated tests to help ensure we are not breaking compatibility of existing NUMA command-line conbinations with these changes.

Quoted 2 lines

Is that the test target in the qemu source? Are there examples of any such NUMA tests already?

I use 'make check' to run them, they are in the tests/ directory.

I am not aware of any NUMA-related test, but I see two possible ways of testing it: using qtest and asking for for the NUMA node info through the monitor, or a unit test for numa.c that simply calls numa_node_parse() and set_numa_nodes(), and then checks the result on numa_info[] directly.

A third option may be using qtest and checking the resulting ACPI tables directly. It would cover even more code, but would be specific to PC.

The tests won't be a requirement to me, but they would surely be welcome (and would have detected the j=0 mistake above).

Quoted 32 lines · Eduardo Habkost

Quoted 31 lines · Nishanth Aravamudan

Quoted 16 lines · Eduardo Habkost

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:13:28PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
[...]

Quoted 14 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

index 12472c6..cdefafe 100644
@@ -1121,6 +1121,18 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     guest_info->ram_size = below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size;
     guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus);
     guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override();
+    /* No support for sparse NUMA node IDs yet: */
+    for (i = max_numa_nodeid - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+        /* Report large node IDs first, to make mistakes easier to spot */
+        if (!numa_info[i].present) {
+            error_report("numa: Node ID missing: %d", i);
+            exit(EXIT_FAILURE);

Quoted 8 lines

hw/i386/pc.c PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size, · line 1135

Quoted 6 lines

hw/i386/pc.c +6 -0

+        }
+    }
+
+    /* This must be always true if all nodes are present */
+    assert(num_numa_nodes == max_numa_nodeid);
+

I wonder if there's a better place where we could put this check.

Well, only i386 and ppc support NUMA, afaict. So I'm not sure where it makes sense to put it. I guess we could have a flag that the architectures set that indicates sparse NUMA support or not, and put this in the generic code.

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 1 line

Or do you mean putting this check somewhere else in the PC init code?

I mean somewhere else in the PC init code. But as today the code that calls pc_guest_info_init() and pc_memory_init() is duplicated in both pc_piix.c and pc_q35.c, this looks like the best place we have.

Ok, so if I send out another revision with the fixed j initialization below, is there anything else in my changes that you would like fixed?

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Except for that, patch looks good to me. But I would be more comfortable with it if we had automated tests to help ensure we are not breaking compatibility of existing NUMA command-line conbinations with these changes.

Is that the test target in the qemu source? Are there examples of any such NUMA tests already?

I use 'make check' to run them, they are in the tests/ directory.

Got it, thanks.

Quoted 5 lines

I am not aware of any NUMA-related test, but I see two possible ways of testing it: using qtest and asking for for the NUMA node info through the monitor, or a unit test for numa.c that simply calls numa_node_parse() and set_numa_nodes(), and then checks the result on numa_info[] directly.

Do you have a preference for which of these to do?

Quoted 3 lines

A third option may be using qtest and checking the resulting ACPI tables directly. It would cover even more code, but would be specific to PC.

I'm not comfortable saying I can get to this, as I still don't really know the ACPI code, but I can put it on my todo list, at least.

Quoted 2 lines

The tests won't be a requirement to me, but they would surely be welcome (and would have detected the j=0 mistake above).

I think it makes sense to put this in now, as it would have caught the original issue(s) with sparse node numbering as well.

Thanks,
Nish

As suggested by Eduardo Habkost, rename nb_numa_nodes to num_numa_nodes throughout the code, as that reflects the use of the variable more clearly.

Signed-off-by Nishanth Aravamudan <[email protected]>

hw/i386/pc.c +8 -8

index 2cf22b1..12472c6 100644
@@ -698,23 +698,23 @@ static FWCfgState *bochs_bios_init(void)
      * of nodes, one word for each VCPU->node and one word for each node to
      * hold the amount of memory.
      */
-    numa_fw_cfg = g_new0(uint64_t, 1 + apic_id_limit + nb_numa_nodes);
-    numa_fw_cfg[0] = cpu_to_le64(nb_numa_nodes);
+    numa_fw_cfg = g_new0(uint64_t, 1 + apic_id_limit + num_numa_nodes);
+    numa_fw_cfg[0] = cpu_to_le64(num_numa_nodes);
     for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
         unsigned int apic_id = x86_cpu_apic_id_from_index(i);
         assert(apic_id < apic_id_limit);
-        for (j = 0; j < nb_numa_nodes; j++) {
+        for (j = 0; j < num_numa_nodes; j++) {
             if (test_bit(i, numa_info[j].node_cpu)) {
                 numa_fw_cfg[apic_id + 1] = cpu_to_le64(j);
                 break;
             }
         }
     }
-    for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+    for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
         numa_fw_cfg[apic_id_limit + 1 + i] = cpu_to_le64(numa_info[i].node_mem);
     }
     fw_cfg_add_bytes(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_NUMA, numa_fw_cfg,
-                     (1 + apic_id_limit + nb_numa_nodes) *
+                     (1 + apic_id_limit + num_numa_nodes) *
                      sizeof(*numa_fw_cfg));
 
     return fw_cfg;

@@ -1121,10 +1121,10 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     guest_info->ram_size = below_4g_mem_size + above_4g_mem_size;
     guest_info->apic_id_limit = pc_apic_id_limit(max_cpus);
     guest_info->apic_xrupt_override = kvm_allows_irq0_override();
-    guest_info->numa_nodes = nb_numa_nodes;
+    guest_info->numa_nodes = num_numa_nodes;
     guest_info->node_mem = g_malloc0(guest_info->numa_nodes *
                                     sizeof *guest_info->node_mem);
-    for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+    for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
         guest_info->node_mem[i] = numa_info[i].node_mem;
     }
 

@@ -1134,7 +1134,7 @@ PcGuestInfo *pc_guest_info_init(ram_addr_t below_4g_mem_size,
     for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
         unsigned int apic_id = x86_cpu_apic_id_from_index(i);
         assert(apic_id < guest_info->apic_id_limit);
-        for (j = 0; j < nb_numa_nodes; j++) {
+        for (j = 0; j < num_numa_nodes; j++) {
             if (test_bit(i, numa_info[j].node_cpu)) {
                 guest_info->node_cpu[apic_id] = j;
                 break;

hw/ppc/spapr.c +5 -5

index a8ba916..4b74fd6 100644
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ static int spapr_fixup_cpu_dt(void *fdt, sPAPREnvironment *spapr)
             }
         }
 
-        if (nb_numa_nodes > 1) {
+        if (num_numa_nodes > 1) {
             ret = fdt_setprop(fdt, offset, "ibm,associativity", associativity,
                               sizeof(associativity));
             if (ret < 0) {

@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ static int spapr_populate_memory(sPAPREnvironment *spapr, void *fdt)
     int i, off;
 
     /* memory node(s) */
-    if (nb_numa_nodes > 1 && numa_info[0].node_mem < ram_size) {
+    if (num_numa_nodes > 1 && numa_info[0].node_mem < ram_size) {
         node0_size = numa_info[0].node_mem;
     } else {
         node0_size = ram_size;

@@ -642,7 +642,7 @@ static int spapr_populate_memory(sPAPREnvironment *spapr, void *fdt)
 
     /* RAM: Node 1 and beyond */
     mem_start = node0_size;
-    for (i = 1; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+    for (i = 1; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
         mem_reg_property[0] = cpu_to_be64(mem_start);
         if (mem_start >= ram_size) {
             node_size = 0;

@@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ static void spapr_reset_htab(sPAPREnvironment *spapr)
 
     /* Update the RMA size if necessary */
     if (spapr->vrma_adjust) {
-        hwaddr node0_size = (nb_numa_nodes > 1) ?
+        hwaddr node0_size = (num_numa_nodes > 1) ?
             numa_info[0].node_mem : ram_size;
         spapr->rma_size = kvmppc_rma_size(node0_size, spapr->htab_shift);
     }

@@ -1225,7 +1225,7 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine)
     MemoryRegion *sysmem = get_system_memory();
     MemoryRegion *ram = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1);
     hwaddr rma_alloc_size;
-    hwaddr node0_size = (nb_numa_nodes > 1) ? numa_info[0].node_mem : ram_size;
+    hwaddr node0_size = (num_numa_nodes > 1) ? numa_info[0].node_mem : ram_size;
     uint32_t initrd_base = 0;
     long kernel_size = 0, initrd_size = 0;
     long load_limit, rtas_limit, fw_size;

include/sysemu/sysemu.h +1 -1

index d8539fd..d17bdbe 100644
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ extern int mem_prealloc;
  */
 #define MAX_CPUMASK_BITS 255
 
-extern int nb_numa_nodes;   /* Number of NUMA nodes */
+extern int num_numa_nodes;  /* Number of NUMA nodes */
 extern int max_numa_nodeid; /* Highest specified NUMA node ID, plus one.
                              * For all nodes, nodeid < max_numa_nodeid
                              */

monitor.c +2 -2

index 5bc70a6..392677a 100644
@@ -1948,8 +1948,8 @@ static void do_info_numa(Monitor *mon, const QDict *qdict)
     int i;
     CPUState *cpu;
 
-    monitor_printf(mon, "%d nodes\n", nb_numa_nodes);
-    for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+    monitor_printf(mon, "%d nodes\n", num_numa_nodes);
+    for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
         monitor_printf(mon, "node %d cpus:", i);
         CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
             if (cpu->numa_node == i) {

numa.c +16 -16

index 2fde740..5930df0 100644
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void numa_node_parse(NumaNodeOptions *node, QemuOpts *opts, Error **errp)
     if (node->has_nodeid) {
         nodenr = node->nodeid;
     } else {
-        nodenr = nb_numa_nodes;
+        nodenr = num_numa_nodes;
     }
 
     if (nodenr >= MAX_NODES) {

@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ int numa_init_func(QemuOpts *opts, void *opaque)
         if (err) {
             goto error;
         }
-        nb_numa_nodes++;
+        num_numa_nodes++;
         break;
     default:
         abort();

@@ -174,31 +174,31 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
     }
 
     /* This must be always true if all nodes are present: */
-    assert(nb_numa_nodes == max_numa_nodeid);
+    assert(num_numa_nodes == max_numa_nodeid);
 
-    if (nb_numa_nodes > 0) {
+    if (num_numa_nodes > 0) {
         uint64_t numa_total;
 
-        if (nb_numa_nodes > MAX_NODES) {
-            nb_numa_nodes = MAX_NODES;
+        if (num_numa_nodes > MAX_NODES) {
+            num_numa_nodes = MAX_NODES;
         }
 
         /* If no memory size is given for any node, assume the default case
          * and distribute the available memory equally across all nodes
          */
-        for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+        for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
             if (numa_info[i].node_mem != 0) {
                 break;
             }
         }
-        if (i == nb_numa_nodes) {
+        if (i == num_numa_nodes) {
             uint64_t usedmem = 0;
 
             /* On Linux, each node's border has to be 8MB aligned,
              * the final node gets the rest.
              */
-            for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes - 1; i++) {
-                numa_info[i].node_mem = (ram_size / nb_numa_nodes) &
+            for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes - 1; i++) {
+                numa_info[i].node_mem = (ram_size / num_numa_nodes) &
                                         ~((1 << 23UL) - 1);
                 usedmem += numa_info[i].node_mem;
             }

@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
         }
 
         numa_total = 0;
-        for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+        for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
             numa_total += numa_info[i].node_mem;
         }
         if (numa_total != ram_size) {

@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
             exit(1);
         }
 
-        for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+        for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
             if (!bitmap_empty(numa_info[i].node_cpu, MAX_CPUMASK_BITS)) {
                 break;
             }

@@ -225,9 +225,9 @@ void set_numa_nodes(void)
          * must cope with this anyway, because there are BIOSes out there in
          * real machines which also use this scheme.
          */
-        if (i == nb_numa_nodes) {
+        if (i == num_numa_nodes) {
             for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) {
-                set_bit(i, numa_info[i % nb_numa_nodes].node_cpu);
+                set_bit(i, numa_info[i % num_numa_nodes].node_cpu);
             }
         }
     }

@@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ void set_numa_modes(void)
     int i;
 
     CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
-        for (i = 0; i < nb_numa_nodes; i++) {
+        for (i = 0; i < num_numa_nodes; i++) {
             if (test_bit(cpu->cpu_index, numa_info[i].node_cpu)) {
                 cpu->numa_node = i;
             }

@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ void memory_region_allocate_system_memory(MemoryRegion *mr, Object *owner,
     uint64_t addr = 0;
     int i;
 
-    if (nb_numa_nodes == 0 || !have_memdevs) {
+    if (num_numa_nodes == 0 || !have_memdevs) {
         allocate_system_memory_nonnuma(mr, owner, name, ram_size);
         return;
     }

vl.c +2 -2

index 6e084c2..0de54c5 100644
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ struct FWBootEntry {
 static QTAILQ_HEAD(, FWBootEntry) fw_boot_order =
     QTAILQ_HEAD_INITIALIZER(fw_boot_order);
 
-int nb_numa_nodes;
+int num_numa_nodes;
 int max_numa_nodeid;
 NodeInfo numa_info[MAX_NODES];
 

@@ -2991,7 +2991,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv, char **envp)
         bitmap_zero(numa_info[i].node_cpu, MAX_CPUMASK_BITS);
     }
 
-    nb_numa_nodes = 0;
+    num_numa_nodes = 0;
     max_numa_nodeid = 0;
     nb_nics = 0;
 

Quoted 5 lines · Nishanth Aravamudan

As suggested by Eduardo Habkost, rename nb_numa_nodes to num_numa_nodes throughout the code, as that reflects the use of the variable more clearly.

Signed-off-by Nishanth Aravamudan <[email protected]>

So far so good but we are past soft freeze. So please keep reposting as RFC to avoid noise, and repost without RFC tag after 2.1 is out.