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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, 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 8B1ADC2BA2B for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 21:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D3B20663 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 21:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="fR6+SAhV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389398AbgDMV7t (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:59:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52894 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2389370AbgDMV7q (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Apr 2020 17:59:46 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x242.google.com (mail-oi1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::242]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52593C0A3BDC for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x242.google.com with SMTP id s202so5516985oih.3 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:59:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=W1jvaZsL9ZNbOXIeEh7lh6mCadCp7P3SgOJXcY82jUs=; b=fR6+SAhVIiQCOMsGgNSxsf0AzuYSlO1eFDjPc36hkq9egFeXVkSC+Y5Uvev6njDR/Z Ccn1Qk4b/bVSW3N54wHlDfwO5stF2Z+ZoeeqFaM3B9RzwhxxrX0lkdNFXJeM8RmKRB7f KcPBwp5rtzO3z26M0wP/bhXLfO6nD5heoI2PcpTC8ZEFJkV8XB+F/h+zJpLL/z/pXSJl Fv/7/GqzAND4oNa+GL4wyFXfETrKBiMqSwgu1Y95NU/oTGsrkAzYDfFtRvbplAL0brYq j2YfRlWISTyyZ55FjD58H33cMih8KQ1GvAYGZjUxnTh+y+lGxcTVbrXFZnSehM3gFtsA lyyw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :reply-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=W1jvaZsL9ZNbOXIeEh7lh6mCadCp7P3SgOJXcY82jUs=; b=BmkO1zTU37ENeiDcXX71TAo1k2Cz9hWSw8E3hl2QHOrthstklc6Np1rBB5fBH0DDvs MI1/Lvze7TnXDysrjp+8jFAKwgzZu4q3aZxg8xIq5TaPhHE6V80wuADKd5irpkZEkWIX 4orjGkKbP7Y9Yi1uVJhHHXfnXD+dcEMlvdpSvmK9g8j2kp0Br0O+LoVTOxq8slZtoIH0 wDghdMQQtzqFbQpZw1ZPm8w/SZfb3K31uaWYBypYjuE5toYIZLBKP4MpIqK787YOY8i5 BkRkic9aDNGjWDBeg8gqLHDnjRYBkHxbhjTLhH2/bk6V1sF1FLB0ZvhQS3GyTBUiQogN kb2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaA1FjiqB5yTmLtAcws4wqRK4STMfMwd4VCU+coHCcZxzYEFXkr HT1iV7PuuISXzfaJBaDYiA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJJP7mXCuB0qdrq9bZfxsXY+fRU5oTstHBquZb+OTyQGMHDxMDi/vWRtblvSWINL21tfwv6sA== X-Received: by 2002:aca:fd12:: with SMTP id b18mr13548979oii.158.1586815185429; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serve.minyard.net (serve.minyard.net. [2001:470:b8f6:1b::1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm2869446oom.18.2020.04.13.14.59.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minyard.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:b8f6:1b:8b39:c3f3:f502:5c4e]) by serve.minyard.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0A4918016D; Mon, 13 Apr 2020 21:59:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:59:41 -0500 From: Corey Minyard To: Tang Bin Cc: arnd@arndb.de, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3]ipmi:bt-bmc:Avoid unnecessary judgement Message-ID: <20200413215941.GF3587@minyard.net> Reply-To: minyard@acm.org References: <20200408115958.2848-1-tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> <20200413113225.GB3587@minyard.net> <47c06465-9ae5-42c2-ca00-5c666521bbde@cmss.chinamobile.com> <20200413142348.GD3587@minyard.net> <3894dab2-0660-999c-6f4c-4b5b9ff57773@cmss.chinamobile.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3894dab2-0660-999c-6f4c-4b5b9ff57773@cmss.chinamobile.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:44:49PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote: > Hi Corey: > > On 2020/4/13 22:23, Corey Minyard wrote: > > > Can I consider that the patch will be applied in 5.8？ > > It's in my queue, so that's the plan. > > > > > > I > > > > changed the title to be "Avoid unnecessary check". > > > You have modified it, which means I don't need to submit a new patch？ > > Correct. > > Thank you very much, I am waiting for the applied. > > > Then, I have some questions to ask you: > >     I have checked the file bt-bmc.c carefully, and found that there are > another two problems.Please help me analyze them, if you think it is > feasible, then I will submit the patch. > >     Q1: About Format Problem > >            In the 469~471 line, the first letter should be indented, please > check if the writing here is reasonable? > I'm not sure how that happened. It was that way from the original submitter and nobody noticed in review. It's obviously wrong. > >     Q2: About the function bt_bmc_config_irq() > >           1）In the function bt_bmc_probe(), the return value of > bt_bmc_config_irq() made no judgement, whether it is suitable? （If your > view is don't need to judge, the following will change.） > Hmm, that's probably not a big deal. If it fails irqs are just not used. It probably shouldn't return a value, though. > >           2）According to the kernel interface of platform_get_irq(),the > return value is negative, > >                    if (!bt_bmc->irq) >                         return -ENODEV; > >                so the check here is invalid.The standard way to write is: > >                      if (bt_bmc->irq < 0) >                           return bt_bmc->irq; > >                But consider if failed, "bt_bmc->irq" must be assigned to > "0"，the easiest way is to delete the        403~404 line, handled directly > by the function devm_request_irq(). The problem you point out is real, the check should be < 0. You don't want it handled by devm_request_irq, that could result in logs that are invalid. Also, it should use platform_get_irq_optional() to avoid a spurrious log when there is no irq. > > >         Q3：About dev_warm() > >                 KERN_WARNING is higher than KERN_INFO, the same to > dev_warn() and dev_info(). When the function bt_bmc_probe() uses dev_info() > to print error message, the dev_warm() in the line of 409 should be > redundant. That is all correct as it is. If there is an irq specified and it can't be requested, that is a problem. If there is no irq specified, that is fine, just info is good. Thanks, -corey > > > I am waiting for your replay, and thank you for your guidance. > > Tang Bin > > >