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=-15.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 D9DD3C433ED for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:36:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (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 4962260240 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:36:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4962260240 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 boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FMB0t6hWVz3c31 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:36:14 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=XM8WFl+T; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.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=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=XM8WFl+T; dkim-atps=neutral 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 lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FMB0P6Cmzz3bSv for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 19:35:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13G9YPCO088520; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:35:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=aJCM4SrqyTaORkxHi2o1cYLorveiJk5ShZ9bwI6VZ4Q=; b=XM8WFl+Tqi+CFTIbe0aGwcSe3tFUdiBKcr3NKFmjM1cqjBfKFokgw3W3BA04wpElClLD g6jQVYr9cvPCpe+egb4Sh5Mh3ZhUvYI2oUrs+3RPe0Dl1zxyU+H46xd08RJ4NqW6h7Wh RMpgKN+8b9VtvCV5dCVOpKkO7Zpk2ay92SOJSlLqumm/bDxgpy+673NdP7F7HrZ8LtrV s83DSEbB5HXau2VMlWyrVWYi7ydNa2JObPDSLv/4mxwoksabYsdjHy5XkEdzJMWgk0lf oTYeNpshClgGBcuLzau5lJ80izm+UKEXsxj8f3dNAkGpnkUSc68NZdz9+DcqM820WMYq +w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 37xsvamanv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:35:39 -0400 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13G9YvNg089776; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:35:38 -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 37xsvaman0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 05:35:38 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 13G9TUBu028658; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:35:36 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 37u39hmcud-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:35:36 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 13G9ZYBZ54985186 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:35:34 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E674AA4057; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:35:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AE0A4040; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:35:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.85.71.75] (unknown [9.85.71.75]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 09:35:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and API To: Andy Shevchenko References: <20210415134637.17770-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Message-ID: <8e724a87-da78-9fc9-073e-cbbfea0ff97e@linux.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 15:05:31 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: Jic_ChSXvb-7tJxw7p7fkbcTIwYSSN0y X-Proofpoint-GUID: Hr_qXn3SErffhqgy9an6YkkRruqG-xHf X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-04-16_05:2021-04-15, 2021-04-16 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104060000 definitions=main-2104160069 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: Oliver O'Halloran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras , Vaibhav Jain , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 4/16/21 2:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 01:28:21PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> On 4/15/21 7:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> Parse to and export from UUID own type, before dereferencing. >>> This also fixes wrong comment (Little Endian UUID is something else) >>> and should fix Sparse warnings about assigning strict types to POD. >>> >>> Fixes: 43001c52b603 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Use ibm,unit-guid as the iset cookie") >>> Fixes: 259a948c4ba1 ("powerpc/pseries/scm: Use a specific endian format for storing uuid from the device tree") >>> Cc: Oliver O'Halloran >>> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V >>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko >>> --- >>> Not tested >>> arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 13 ++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c >>> index ae6f5d80d5ce..4366e1902890 100644 >>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c >>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c >>> @@ -1085,8 +1085,9 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> u32 drc_index, metadata_size; >>> u64 blocks, block_size; >>> struct papr_scm_priv *p; >>> + u8 uuid_raw[UUID_SIZE]; >>> const char *uuid_str; >>> - u64 uuid[2]; >>> + uuid_t uuid; >>> int rc; >>> /* check we have all the required DT properties */ >>> @@ -1129,16 +1130,18 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> p->hcall_flush_required = of_property_read_bool(dn, "ibm,hcall-flush-required"); >>> /* We just need to ensure that set cookies are unique across */ >>> - uuid_parse(uuid_str, (uuid_t *) uuid); >>> + uuid_parse(uuid_str, &uuid); >>> + >>> /* >>> * cookie1 and cookie2 are not really little endian >>> - * we store a little endian representation of the >>> + * we store a raw buffer representation of the >>> * uuid str so that we can compare this with the label >>> * area cookie irrespective of the endian config with which >>> * the kernel is built. >>> */ >>> - p->nd_set.cookie1 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[0]); >>> - p->nd_set.cookie2 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[1]); >>> + export_uuid(uuid_raw, &uuid); >>> + p->nd_set.cookie1 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[0]); >>> + p->nd_set.cookie2 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[8]); >> >> ok that does the equivalent of cpu_to_le64 there. So we are good. But the >> comment update is missing the details why we did that get_unaligned_le64. >> Maybe raw buffer representation is the correct term? >> Should we add an example in the comment. ie, > >> /* >> * Historically we stored the cookie in the below format. >> for a uuid str 72511b67-0b3b-42fd-8d1d-5be3cae8bcaa >> cookie1 was 0xfd423b0b671b5172 cookie2 was 0xaabce8cae35b1d8d >> */ > > I'm fine with the comment. At least it will shed a light on the byte ordering > we are expecting. > Will you be sending an update? Also it will be good to list the sparse warning in the commit message? -aneesh