From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid()
Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 14:39:20 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5552F198.4030304@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150511163542.GB2942@red-moon>
On 2015年05月12日 00:35, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015???05???05??? 19:25, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/05/15 03:46, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() to identify cpu with invalid
>>>> physical ID, then used it as replacement of the direct comparisons
>>>> with PHYS_CPUID_INVALID.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++--
>>>> drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 4 ++--
>>>> include/linux/acpi.h | 5 +++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>>> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>>> index 62c846b..92a5f73 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
>>>> index 913b49f..cc82ff3 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
>>>> @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ static inline bool invalid_logical_cpuid(u32 cpuid)
>>>> return (int)cpuid < 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return (int)phys_id < 0;
>>>
>>> Should this be phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID ? else I don't see why we
>>> need to even define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID
>>
>> I'm OK with this. For now, CPU phys_id will be valid value or
>> PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in all cases for ACPI processor driver, but
>> I want ask Rafael's opinion on this, is it OK to you too, Rafael?
>
> Is your worry related to functions returning error values
> other than PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (when they are expected to return a
> physical id) ?
Yes.
> Is there any in the current kernel ?
No such returns as far as I know.
>
> static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id)
> {
> return phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID;
> }
>
> This should do, and if we need more mapping functions that are supposed
> to return physical ids they should return PHYS_CPUID_INVALID on failure.
OK, I will send a update version for this patch only.
Thanks
Hanjun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-13 6:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-05 2:46 [PATCH v2 0/7] minor cleanups for ACPI processor driver Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] ACPI / processor: remove cpu_index in acpi_processor_get_info() Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 11:08 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] ACPI / processor: remove phys_id " Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_logical_cpuid() Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 11:15 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-05-05 12:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-05 13:15 ` Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 12:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-05-05 13:15 ` Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 15:12 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] Xen / ACPI / processor: use invalid_logical_cpuid() Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] Xen / ACPI / processor: Remove unneeded NULL check in xen_acpi_processor_enable() Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 10:29 ` Stefano Stabellini
2015-05-09 22:06 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] ACPI / processor: return specific error instead of -1 Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 2:46 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() Hanjun Guo
2015-05-05 11:25 ` Sudeep Holla
2015-05-05 13:14 ` Hanjun Guo
2015-05-11 16:35 ` Lorenzo Pieralisi
2015-05-13 6:39 ` Hanjun Guo [this message]
2015-05-06 4:11 ` Hanjun Guo
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=5552F198.4030304@linaro.org \
--to=hanjun.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=Sudeep.Holla@arm.com \
--cc=Will.Deacon@arm.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com \
/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