[PATCH 2/2] arm64/numa: fix incorrect print of end_pfn

[Will Deacon]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 08:21:37PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/10/20 18:51, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:52:56AM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
> >>
> >> When booting on NUMA system with memory-less node (no
> >> memory dimm on this memory controller), the print
> >> for setup_node_data() is incorrect:
> >>
> >> NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]
> >>
> >> It should be 0, not 0xffffffffffffffff as there is
> >> no memory on that node.
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to print something useful, like "memory-less
> > node"?
> 
> in the log,
> 
> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 0 [mem 0x00000000-0x13fbffffff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x13fbffe500-0x13fbffffff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x1400000000-0x17fbffffff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfec500-0x17fbfedfff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfeaa00-0x17fbfec4ff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(2) on node 1
> [    0.000000] NUMA: Initmem setup node 3 [mem 0x00000000-0xffffffffffffffff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA [mem 0x17fbfe8f00-0x17fbfea9ff]
> [    0.000000] NUMA: NODE_DATA(3) on node 1
> 
> if printing "NUMA: Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x00000000-0x00000000]",
> it will make the log consistent with others, and obvious it's a memory-less
> node as memory range 0x00000000-0x00000000, what do you think?

How is that more obvious than printing the string "memory-less node"?
Is this data parsed by something?

Will