From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gang.chen@asianux.com>
Received: from intranet.asianux.com (intranet.asianux.com [58.214.24.6])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE8E42C00D0
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:31:33 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <51F0C606.9090702@asianux.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:30:30 +0800
From: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: kernel: remove useless code which related
 with 'max_cpus'
References: <51ECCA10.7010709@asianux.com>
 <51ECCEA8.5040406@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51ECD0BF.8080605@asianux.com>
 <51ECD3D4.9020405@asianux.com> <51ECD664.7040708@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20130723134431.GF31944@concordia> <51EF1F97.3070409@asianux.com>
 <20130724011640.GA6042@concordia> <51EF375D.9060006@asianux.com>
 <20130725031501.GA15673@concordia> <1374729381.6142.59.camel@pasglop>
 <51F0B68F.4000402@asianux.com> <1374731505.6142.64.camel@pasglop>
 <1374732225.6142.66.camel@pasglop>
In-Reply-To: <1374732225.6142.66.camel@pasglop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: chenhui.zhao@freescale.com, "paulus@samba.org" <paulus@samba.org>,
 "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On 07/25/2013 02:03 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 15:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 13:24 +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> For an extern function, if the performance is not sensible, better to
>>> have the return value which can indicate the failure with the negative
>>> number.
>>
>> The return value is meaningless.
>>
>> We don't have a good way to handle it. It has no defined semantics. What
>> does "failure" means in that case ? Nothing !
>>
>> So just remove it.
> 
> Note: If you want to create a concept of smp_ops->probe() failing, then
> not only you need to check all the implementations, but *also* add
> something sensible to do when it fails ... such as disabling bringup of
> CPUs.
> 

Hmm... if critical, use BUG(), else (none critical), just print a
warning message ?

> In this case however, we have put the burden of doing whatever makes
> sense in the probe() function itself. If can adjust the possible map if
> it fails.
> 

Excuse me, my English is not quite well, I guss your meaning is: "it can
be fail in internal implementation, but has no effect with the final
result to caller", is it correct ?

If what I understand is correct, it needn't let caller know about it.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang