From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: luanshi <zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / APEI: Remove needless __ghes_check_estatus() calls
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:18:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190621151826.GA19067@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1560749129-26288-1-git-send-email-zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:25:29PM +0800, luanshi wrote:
> Function __ghes_check_estatus() is called after __ghes_peek_estatus(),
> but it is already called in __ghes_peek_estatus(). So we should remove
> some needless __ghes_check_estatus() calls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liguang Zhang <zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c | 10 ----------
> 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> index 993940d..1041a4d 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/apei/ghes.c
> @@ -372,10 +372,6 @@ static int ghes_read_estatus(struct ghes *ghes,
> if (rc)
> return rc;
>
> - rc = __ghes_check_estatus(ghes, estatus);
> - if (rc)
> - return rc;
> -
> return __ghes_read_estatus(estatus, *buf_paddr, fixmap_idx,
> cper_estatus_len(estatus));
> }
> @@ -882,12 +878,6 @@ static int ghes_in_nmi_queue_one_entry(struct ghes *ghes,
> return rc;
> }
>
> - rc = __ghes_check_estatus(ghes, &tmp_header);
> - if (rc) {
> - ghes_clear_estatus(ghes, &tmp_header, buf_paddr, fixmap_idx);
> - return rc;
> - }
> -
> len = cper_estatus_len(&tmp_header);
> node_len = GHES_ESTATUS_NODE_LEN(len);
> estatus_node = (void *)gen_pool_alloc(ghes_estatus_pool, node_len);
> --
Yah, looks correct to me.
James, I think the cleaner thing to do would be for
__ghes_peek_estatus() not to call __ghes_check_estatus() at the end but
to return success and we can keep the two functions - "peek" and "check"
status - separate and always do:
if (peek)
return ...;
if (check)
return ...;
because this way the checking remains separate in __ghes_check_estatus()
and so is the peeking in __ghes_peek_estatus().
We can merge the two functions because we always do peek and then check
but keeping them separate makes the code clearer.
Am I making some sense...?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-21 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-17 5:25 [PATCH] ACPI / APEI: Remove needless __ghes_check_estatus() calls luanshi
2019-06-21 15:18 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2019-06-24 17:32 ` James Morse
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=20190621151826.GA19067@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=zhangliguang@linux.alibaba.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox