From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/eeh: Validate arch in eeh_add_device_early()
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 09:56:03 -0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56963B53.8050505@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1452665080.2403.21.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
On 01/13/2016 04:04 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-01-10 at 01:08 -0200, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:weust changes the way the arch checking is done in function
>>
>> This patch jeeh_add_device_early(): we use no more eeh_enabled(), but instead we check the running architecture by using the macro machine_is(). If we are running on
>> pSeries or PowerNV, the EEH mechanism can be enabled; otherwise, we bail out
>> the function. This way, we don't enable EEH on Cell and we don't hit the oops
>> on DLPAR either.
>
> Can't we just check for eeh_ops being NULL ?
>
> Cheers,
> Ben.
Sure, we can. I prefer the arch checking just because I think it's more
"logical", so it's easier to understand why it's there. The "cost" is
the same in practice, since the arch checking is just a macro that
checks a struct member.
What do you think it's better? Thanks for the review.
Cheers,
Guilherme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-13 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-10 3:08 [PATCH] powerpc/eeh: Validate arch in eeh_add_device_early() Guilherme G. Piccoli
2016-01-13 6:04 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2016-01-13 11:56 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli [this message]
2016-01-13 10:38 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-01-13 12:08 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2016-01-13 21:25 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-01-14 19:59 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
2016-01-14 23:37 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-01-19 20:11 ` Guilherme G. Piccoli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56963B53.8050505@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).