From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh: Validate arch in eeh_add_device_early()
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:56:03 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56963B53.8050505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1452665080.2403.21.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
On 01/13/2016 04:04 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 01:08 -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:weust changes the way the arch checking is done in function
>>
>> This patch jeeh_add_device_early(): we use no more eeh_enabled(), but instead we check the running architecture by using the macro machine_is(). If we are running on
>> pSeries or PowerNV, the EEH mechanism can be enabled; otherwise, we bail out
>> the function. This way, we don't enable EEH on Cell and we don't hit the oops
>> on DLPAR either.
>
> Can't we just check for eeh_ops being NULL ?
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
Sure, we can. I prefer the arch checking just because I think it's more
"logical", so it's easier to understand why it's there. The "cost" is
the same in practice, since the arch checking is just a macro that
checks a struct member.
What do you think it's better? Thanks for the review.
Cheers,
Guilherme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-13 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-10 3:08 [PATCH] powerpc/eeh: Validate arch in eeh_add_device_early() Guilherme G. Piccoli
2016-01-13 6:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-01-13 11:56 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli [this message]
2016-01-13 10:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-01-13 12:08 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2016-01-13 21:25 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-01-14 19:59 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2016-01-14 23:37 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-01-19 20:11 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56963B53.8050505@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.