[RFC PATCH] EDAC: Cleanup atomic_scrub mess

Michael Ellerman
2015-05-28T02:27:22Z

On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 17:52 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 04:13:22PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> > On 05/21/2015 02:11 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >From: Borislav Petkov<bp@suse.de>
> > >
> > >So first of all, this atomic_scrub() function's naming is bad. It looks
> > >like an atomic_t helper. Change it to edac_atomic_scrub().
> > >
> > >The bigger problem is that this function is arch-specific and every new
> > >arch which doesn't necessarily need that functionality still needs to
> > >define it, otherwise EDAC doesn't compile.
> > >
> > >So instead of doing that and including arch-specific headers, have each
> > >arch define an EDAC_ATOMIC_SCRUB symbol which can be used in edac_mc.c
> > >for ifdeffery. Much cleaner.
> > >
> > >We already are doing this with another symbol - EDAC_SUPPORT. This is
> > >also much cleaner than having CONFIG_EDAC explicitly depend on all the
> > >arches which need/have EDAC support and drivers.
> > >
> > >This way I can kill the useless edac.h header in tile too.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov<bp@suse.de>
> >
> > Acked-by: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> [for tile]
>
> Thanks.
>
> Just to clarify after today's discussion on IRC: this patch doesn't
> change current DRAM scrubbing behavior on the relevant arches - it
> simply makes the definition of that atomic_scrub thing non-mandatory on
> new arches or on those which don't need it.
>
> In the meantime, patch has been build-tested on arm and ppc - the two
> I'm missing an ACK for.

I haven't tested it but it looks sane:

Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>

cheers