Messages in this thread | | | From | Hari Bathini <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible | Date | Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:39:38 +0530 |
| |
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
| |