From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D9353B5318 for ; Fri, 29 May 2026 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780050217; cv=none; b=GtkfLBKk65M2MkU9DMWXwjJGc/VJ7L4SZlrQ7BYGcI3ldkMh9Woz1v0rs2fc4piA7oRGasXo/U/WPplHWBhZDuhtoRIPD7fbt9qNx1J+FbGIBw+uVEs6rZ+u5kjl4+f+jEM6GxBmQYIzITphKMUd6hz6Yl48oXtv6RdTiNpYClE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780050217; c=relaxed/simple; bh=08+lAaN+OJq3k++IAC/2FGxKFQrhCK1oU3bsNwWlFcU=; h=From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-Id; b=a18Z6OiO7CnDSQkp88KJNoXC9PCg2gG1CuxK5Yrpx/PC3+mB2ZDZP/IjkrAQS1uKJHS4GSncW/Ri7/7iaiL2WFpl8r5R9LcEwgxH7k6p5rsajbPuZ34SsEFv+UMLrAhMyhVXo5Dqdbw/rk134VcKGru2E9qIku4+QpSG1azUQKM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=BKW+xkvC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="BKW+xkvC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6E281F0089A; Fri, 29 May 2026 10:23:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780050215; bh=cr0OqpZDW4Uiq5u3VxYlkLWQdJuPdM45GgD/6kViHBg=; h=From:Subject:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=BKW+xkvCKFjBVbMdtxL1h7f6Go8+czIeKELpJNEJIQCKRxU6qXgrD5VCzB0PGIyDA +QljPf6KgKTnQWDO1J/kGRiJMovZWqZBasQG322jYOf23SHohujmM32XNZ/1fPoF4i mH9rtmmlZpN65MsTvxNOOmx8uhWNV6A1DvZeFMdfppEt5ZnfvgfDXX3kKHzDRY1Av1 EK+lI21Ytj77WUHIgl8SVAnr79YAQXyQb/PGxomlq26pAhx/Vl+2N5A+/Kho+/kEzK VtXTEsw3flm7l9v5WhR+yM0YDVHaP3TVchhiYvi/JhwJoXaVntohy5PXUqc1IP565A CJ0Sg6uvS1QRA== From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/10] ACPI: APEI: GHES: share macros via a private header Reply-To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev To: "Ahmed Tiba" Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20260529-topics-ahmtib01-ras_ffh_arm_internal_review-v5-1-2e0500d42642@arm.com> References: <20260529-topics-ahmtib01-ras_ffh_arm_internal_review-v5-1-2e0500d42642@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 29 May 2026 10:23:34 +0000 Message-Id: <20260529102335.A6E281F0089A@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(= s) to consider: - [Medium] The patch un-staticizes and exposes 7 core internal functions wi= thout documenting this behavior in the commit message. - [Low] The new header `include/acpi/ghes_cper.h` uses `enum fixed_addresse= s` in function prototypes without including ``. -- commit 30e8939fe8b7b5fe0f59a4dfeee62c476774ac25 Author: Ahmed Tiba ACPI: APEI: GHES: share macros via a private header This patch moves CPER helper macros from ghes.c to a new private header. It aims to allow sharing these macros with upcoming helper files without functional changes. > Carve the CPER helper macros out of ghes.c and place them in a private > header so they can be shared with upcoming helper files. This is a > mechanical include change with no functional differences. [Severity: Medium] Is this description accurate? The patch removes the static keyword from seven internal functions (such as ghes_new() and ghes_fini()), exposing them. Could the commit message be more precise about these function visibility changes? > diff --git a/include/acpi/ghes_cper.h b/include/acpi/ghes_cper.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..6b7632cfaf667 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/include/acpi/ghes_cper.h [ ... ] > +#include [ ... ] > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_APEI > +struct ghes *ghes_new(struct acpi_hest_generic *generic); > +void ghes_fini(struct ghes *ghes); > + > +int ghes_read_estatus(struct ghes *ghes, > + struct acpi_hest_generic_status *estatus, > + u64 *buf_paddr, enum fixed_addresses fixmap_idx); [Severity: Low] Does this header need to include ? Without it, is enum fixed_addresses treated as a new incomplete type scoped to the parameter list, potentially causing a conflicting types compilation error when the functions are defined? --=20 Sashiko AI review =C2=B7 https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260529-topics-ahm= tib01-ras_ffh_arm_internal_review-v5-0-2e0500d42642@arm.com?part=3D1