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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 840EEC43140 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:57:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54EFF2082E for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:57:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567702627; bh=A9rEMrkzcP1PllWUo7qsbxgP4IfNmyWL9LWYqH72v+s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=XyIlV6R3FmBmpXb1GYVXQUz9cccna6uv78jw1XZ9HlhoDEN5WKYaDbu391CCHidkC 29/ErLgcWIjMLNHZyXM8JQlL8VjXS7l9xdAGb3PXt3o1HlT5T/FYgTmQviszYE7uQx g/vt6ayK9ZgsUGaSw2BAqWzRtFqDCc217ZpbMZYM= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390844AbfIEQ5F (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:05 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33138 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389547AbfIEQ5F (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Sep 2019 12:57:05 -0400 Received: from localhost (83-86-89-107.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl [83.86.89.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C65720825; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 16:57:04 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567702625; bh=A9rEMrkzcP1PllWUo7qsbxgP4IfNmyWL9LWYqH72v+s=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=NMA2qIoVrX7S/z/t3jBgNqQm/y28n8bEfnyEUp/5gy3FqP9MZt2NUF+SJLZhDJBEf Hs7syyJTF8NT+PmKrugERHEsji/M8ehihFon8eM23ni1ye0sR/NtPXwwU6mPYs8jsl DCbXQWizidahWTMhPgvy3gpdE954wHEdxKZG3H5c= Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 18:57:01 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Mike Travis Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov , Christoph Hellwig , Dimitri Sivanich , Russ Anderson , Hedi Berriche , Steve Wahl , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] x86/platform/uv: Decode UVsystab Info Message-ID: <20190905165701.GB2737@kroah.com> References: <20190905130252.590161292@stormcage.eag.rdlabs.hpecorp.net> <20190905130253.325911213@stormcage.eag.rdlabs.hpecorp.net> <20190905141634.GA25790@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:43:57AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote: > > > On 9/5/2019 7:47 AM, Mike Travis wrote: > > Also, nit: > > > > > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c > > > +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/apic/x2apic_uv_x.c > > > @@ -1303,7 +1303,8 @@ static int __init decode_uv_systab(void) > > >       struct uv_systab *st; > > >       int i; > > > -    if (uv_hub_info->hub_revision < UV4_HUB_REVISION_BASE) > > > +    /* Select only UV4 (hubbed or hubless) and higher */ > > > +    if (is_uv_hubbed(-2) < uv(4) && is_uv_hubless(-2) < uv(4)) > > >           return 0;    /* No extended UVsystab required */ > > >       st = uv_systab; > > > @@ -1554,8 +1555,19 @@ static __init int uv_system_init_hubless > > >       /* Init kernel/BIOS interface */ > > >       rc = uv_bios_init(); > > > +    if (rc < 0) { > > > +        pr_err("UV: BIOS init error:%d\n", rc); > > > > Why isn't that function printing an error? > > > > > > > +        return rc; > > > +    } > > > + > > > +    /* Process UVsystab */ > > > +    rc = decode_uv_systab(); > > > +    if (rc < 0) { > > > +        pr_err("UV: UVsystab decode error:%d\n", rc); > > > > Same here, have the function itself print the error, makes this type of > > stuff much cleaner. > > Turns out both functions already print an error message for each instance of > an error. The only redundancy is the caller also printing an error with > just the numeric error code. Shall I remove that? Of course you should, why would you want to see multiple error messages for the same single error? greg k-h