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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 D3F4CC433E0 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B63E92065D for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728688AbgGODu4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:50:56 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:26174 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726710AbgGODuz (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:50:55 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06F3WE6f160439; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:50:45 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329d9hnnxp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:50:45 -0400 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06F3Z8dt167394; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:50:44 -0400 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 329d9hnnxg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:50:44 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06F3ifkR025877; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:44 GMT Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 327urspgjw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:44 +0000 Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.235]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06F3og5x61669836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:42 GMT Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34947805F; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5294B7805E; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from morokweng.localdomain (unknown [9.163.66.159]) by b03ledav004.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 03:50:38 +0000 (GMT) References: <159466074408.24747.10036072269371204890.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> <159466090332.24747.9255471295044653085.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.3 From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Hari Bathini Cc: Michael Ellerman , Andrew Morton , Pingfan Liu , Kexec-ml , Mimi Zohar , Nayna Jain , Petr Tesarik , Mahesh J Salgaonkar , Sourabh Jain , lkml , linuxppc-dev , Eric Biederman , Dave Young , Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] powerpc/drmem: make lmb walk a bit more flexible In-reply-to: <159466090332.24747.9255471295044653085.stgit@hbathini.in.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 00:50:35 -0300 Message-ID: <871rld8mic.fsf@morokweng.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-14_10:2020-07-14,2020-07-14 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007150025 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hari Bathini writes: > @@ -534,7 +537,7 @@ static int __init early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc(unsigned long node, > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES > if (depth == 1 && > strcmp(uname, "ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory") == 0) { > - walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, early_init_drmem_lmb); > + walk_drmem_lmbs_early(node, NULL, early_init_drmem_lmb); walk_drmem_lmbs_early() can now fail. Should this failure be propagated as a return value of early_init_dt_scan_memory_ppc()? > return 0; > } > #endif > @@ -787,7 +790,7 @@ static int __init parse_numa_properties(void) > */ > memory = of_find_node_by_path("/ibm,dynamic-reconfiguration-memory"); > if (memory) { > - walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, numa_setup_drmem_lmb); > + walk_drmem_lmbs(memory, NULL, numa_setup_drmem_lmb); Similarly here. Now that this call can fail, should parse_numa_properties() handle or propagate the failure? > of_node_put(memory); > } > -- Thiago Jung Bauermann IBM Linux Technology Center