From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752633AbcKGKdc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 7 Nov 2016 05:33:32 -0500
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:56269 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751991AbcKGKda (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 7 Nov 2016 05:33:30 -0500
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:32:19 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rt@linutronix.de,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/25] x86/mcheck: Be prepared for a rollback back to the
 ONLINE state
Message-ID: <20161107103219.sm4otwhwptzckvzh@pd.tnic>
References: <20161103145021.28528-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20161103145021.28528-21-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161103145021.28528-21-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:50:16PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> If we try a CPU down and fail in the middle then we roll back to the
> online state. This  means we would perform CPU_ONLINE()
> without invoking CPU_DEAD() for the cleanup of what was allocated in

Are CPU_ONLINE() and CPU_DEAD() functions? Those are the states, right?

> CPU_ONLINE.
> Be prepared for this and don't allocate the struct if we have it
> already.
> 
> Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c     | 4 ++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c | 3 +++
>  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> index a7fdf453d895..e9ffd6d9e32d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> @@ -2409,6 +2409,10 @@ static int mce_device_create(unsigned int cpu)
>  	if (!mce_available(&boot_cpu_data))
>  		return -EIO;
>  
> +	dev = per_cpu(mce_device, cpu);
> +	if (dev)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	dev = kzalloc(sizeof *dev, GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!dev)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
> index 55cd018bc1ae..3e529fd747f8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce_amd.c
> @@ -1097,6 +1097,9 @@ static int threshold_create_device(unsigned int cpu)
>  	struct threshold_bank **bp;
>  	int err = 0;
>  
> +	bp = per_cpu(threshold_banks, cpu);
> +	if (bp)
> +		return 0;

<--- newline here.

>  	bp = kzalloc(sizeof(struct threshold_bank *) * mca_cfg.banks,
>  		     GFP_KERNEL);
>  	if (!bp)
> -- 
> 2.10.2
> 
> 

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.