lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [16]   [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


On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
>
> 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?

They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb()
are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios
even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are?

Thanks
Hari

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-16 23:10    [W:0.197 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site