From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456AFC433E3 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:16:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1C57207DD for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:16:51 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F1C57207DD Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B76Wk1dMqzDqfv for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:16:50 +1000 (AEST) Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B76Mj23hNzDr7P for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:09:53 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B76Mh5BfLz8tPV for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:09:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix) id 4B76Mh3Zd4z9sRf; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:09:52 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=hbathini@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B76Mh0Sykz9sRR for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2020 07:09:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GL3GfG084584; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:09:49 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32autamr7j-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:09:48 -0400 Received: from m0098409.ppops.net (m0098409.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06GL3JoY084887; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:09:48 -0400 Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32autamr6y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 17:09:48 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06GKpeKs022862; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:09:46 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3274pgwsyw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:09:46 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06GL9h2b27656218 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:09:43 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08403AE045; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:09:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B33AE055; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:09:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.102.2.181] (unknown [9.102.2.181]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 21:09:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Hari Bathini Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible To: Thiago Jung Bauermann References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <159466090332.24747.9255471295044653085.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <871rld8mic.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Message-ID: <30e8f02a-f009-70a5-01e9-dec9eff213b1@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 02:39:38 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <871rld8mic.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-16_11:2020-07-16, 2020-07-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_definite policy=outbound score=100 spamscore=100 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=100 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=-1000 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007160140 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Pingfan Liu , Petr Tesarik , Nayna Jain , Kexec-ml , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Mimi Zohar , lkml , linuxppc-dev , Sourabh Jain , Andrew Morton , Dave Young , Vivek Goyal , Eric Biederman Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 15/07/20 9:20 am, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > Hari Bathini writes: > >> @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node, >> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES >> if (depth == 1 && >> strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) { >> - walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb); >> + walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb); > > walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated > as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()? > >> return 0; >> } >> #endif > > >> @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void) >> */ >> memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory"); >> if (memory) { >> - walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb); >> + walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb); > > Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should > parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure? They would still not fail unless the callbacks early_init_drmem_lmb() & numa_setup_drmem_lmb() are updated to have failure scenarios. Also, these call sites always ignored failure scenarios even before walk_drmem_lmbs() was introduced. So, I prefer to keep them the way they are? Thanks Hari