lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible
Date

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-15 05:52    [W:0.329 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site