From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-path: <kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org>
Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]
 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com)
 by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1jwBwJ-0000Si-UD
 for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 22:01:17 +0000
References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com>
 <159466090332.24747.9255471295044653085.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com>
 <871rld8mic.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
 <30e8f02a-f009-70a5-01e9-dec9eff213b1@linux.ibm.com>
From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible
In-reply-to: <30e8f02a-f009-70a5-01e9-dec9eff213b1@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 19:01:05 -0300
Message-ID: <877dv3ce72.fsf@morokweng.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <kexec.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/kexec>,
 <mailto:kexec-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/>
List-Post: <mailto:kexec@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kexec-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec>,
 <mailto:kexec-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "kexec" <kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org>
Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org
To: Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Pingfan Liu <piliu@redhat.com>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>, Nayna Jain <nayna@linux.ibm.com>, Kexec-ml <kexec@lists.infradead.org>, Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>, Sourabh Jain <sourabhjain@linux.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Eric Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>


Hari Bathini <hbathini@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> 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?

Ok, makes sense. In this case:

Reviewed-by: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@linux.ibm.com>

-- 
Thiago Jung Bauermann
IBM Linux Technology Center

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec