Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] firmware/efi: Process CXL Component Events

[Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>]

Dan Williams wrote:
> Ira Weiny wrote:
> > BIOS can configure memory devices as firmware first.  This will send CXL
> > events to the firmware instead of the OS.  The firmware can then send
> > these events to the OS via UEFI.
> > 
> > UEFI v2.10 section N.2.14 defines a Common Platform Error Record (CPER)
> > format for CXL Component Events.  The format is mostly the same as the
> > CXL Common Event Record Format.  The difference is a GUID is used in
> > the Section Type to identify the event type.
> > 
> > Add EFI support to detect CXL CPER records and call a notifier chain
> > with the record data blobs to be processed by the CXL code.
> 
> It is no longer a notifier chain in this version. I wouldn't even call
> it a notifier, it's just a registered callback.

Ah yea I missed that in my rework sorry.

[snip]

> > +DECLARE_RWSEM(cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> > +static cxl_cper_notifier cper_notifier;
> > +
> > +void cxl_cper_post_event(const char *pfx, guid_t *sec_type,
> > +			 struct cper_cxl_event_rec *rec)
> > +{
> > +	struct cxl_cper_event_data data = {
> > +		.rec = rec,
> > +	};
> > +
> > +	if (!(rec->hdr.validation_bits & CPER_CXL_COMP_EVENT_LOG_VALID)) {
> > +		pr_err(FW_WARN "cxl event no Component Event Log present\n");
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_GEN_MEDIA_GUID))
> > +		data.event_type = CXL_CPER_EVENT_GEN_MEDIA;
> > +	else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_DRAM_GUID))
> > +		data.event_type = CXL_CPER_EVENT_DRAM;
> > +	else if (guid_equal(sec_type, &CPER_SEC_CXL_MEM_MODULE_GUID))
> > +		data.event_type = CXL_CPER_EVENT_MEM_MODULE;
> > +
> > +	down_read(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> 
>    guard(rwsem_read)(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);

Much better.  Done throughout.

> 
> > +	if (cper_notifier)
> > +		cper_notifier(&data);
> > +	up_read(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void cxl_cper_register_notifier(cxl_cper_notifier notifier)
> > +{
> > +	down_write(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> 
>    guard(rwsem_write)(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> 
> > +	cper_notifier = notifier;
> 
> I would enforce that there is only one registrant and explicitly fail
> attempts to assign more than one.

Done.

> 
> > +	up_write(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_NS_GPL(cxl_cper_register_notifier, CXL);
> > +
> > +void cxl_cper_unregister_notifier(void)
> > +{
> > +	down_write(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> 
>    guard(rwsem_write)(&cxl_cper_rw_sem);
> 
> > +	cper_notifier = NULL;
> 
> This could enforce that the same callback specified at registration time
> must also be passed at unregistration to disallow anonymous
> unregistration.
> 
> Makes the code self documenting that the registrant is a singleton, and
> that unregistration must precede the next registration.

But what do we do if it does not match?  Returning an error will be
ignored by the cxl_pci_driver_exit() and if we enforce the singleton in
the registration I don't see a lot of room for error here.


[snip]

> > diff --git a/include/linux/cxl-event.h b/include/linux/cxl-event.h
> > index 18dab4d90dc8..c764ff877a6d 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cxl-event.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cxl-event.h
> > @@ -108,4 +108,55 @@ struct cxl_event_record_raw {
> >  	union cxl_event event;
> >  } __packed;
> >  
> > +enum cxl_event_type {
> > +	CXL_CPER_EVENT_GEN_MEDIA,
> > +	CXL_CPER_EVENT_DRAM,
> > +	CXL_CPER_EVENT_MEM_MODULE,
> > +};
> > +
> > +#pragma pack(1)
> 
> Looks like there is usage of __packed a few lines up, just pick
> one-style. Prefer __packed vs #pragma when only a small handful of
> structures need annotation as that is easier to check for correctness in
> patch form.

Ok I'll change it.  Smita requested the use of pragma but keeping the
__packed is redundant right now.  And I'll go with your preference of
__packed.

Ira