| From | Thiago Jung Bauermann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible | Date | Wed, 15 Jul 2020 00:50:35 -0300 |
| |
Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node, > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES > if (depth == 1 && > strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) { > - walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb); > + walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb);
walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()?
> return 0; > } > #endif <snip>
> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void) > */ > memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory"); > if (memory) { > - walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb); > + walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb);
Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure?
> of_node_put(memory); > } >
-- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center
|