From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hanjun Guo Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI / processor: remove incorrect comparison of phys_id Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 15:56:50 +0800 Message-ID: <54DDAE42.3080104@linaro.org> References: <1416926930-792-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <9584090.hqdaL9kipZ@vostro.rjw.lan> <5478C765.30504@arm.com> <25335106.4A2H4B9kq8@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com ([209.85.192.182]:40315 "EHLO mail-pd0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751477AbbBMH4k (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Feb 2015 02:56:40 -0500 Received: by pdev10 with SMTP id v10so17785562pde.7 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:56:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <25335106.4A2H4B9kq8@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Sudeep Holla Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On 2014=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8829=E6=97=A5 07:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, November 28, 2014 07:05:09 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> On 26/11/14 22:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:33:04 AM Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> Hi Hanjun, >>>> >>>> On 26/11/14 09:53, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> Hi Sudeep, >>>>> >>>>> On 2014-11-25 22:48, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch removes that incorrect comparision in >>>>>> acpi_processor_hotadd_init as the lone user of this function is >>>>>> already checking for correctness of phys_id before calling it. >>>>> >>>>> if (apic_id < 0) acpi_handle_debug(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU >>>>> APIC ID.\n"); >>>>> >>>>> it only check the value and print debug message but no returns, s= o I >>>>> think the check in the following patch is still needed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Agreed, but that's something we need to fix in the logic and not b= y >>>> changing these identifiers to signed values in the structures. >>> >>> I'd rather not change data structures just because of what one funt= ion returns. >>> >>> Instead, I'd do something like >>> >>> #define CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID (u32)(-1) >>> >>> change the function in question to return CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID inste= ad of -1 >>> and change the check to >>> >>> if (phys_id =3D=3D CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID) >>> ... >>> >> >> Do I need to rebase this on top of Hanjun's cleanups to convert apic= _id >> to phys_id ? Since the variable is getting renamed it will conflict. > > Yes, it's better to rebase IMO. Hi Sudeep, any updates for this patch? I'm working on introducing typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t for x86 and ia64 for phys_id, and need this CPU_PHYS_ID_INVALID macro, if you are not working on that, I will restart the work to address the comments from Lorenzo and Catalin [1]. [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/3/635 Thanks Hanjun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html