lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/5] acpi/numa: check if parsing acpi numa info disabled earlier
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, liguang wrote:

> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>

Because there's no changelog, I have to read the patch to figure out what
it's doing since the title isn't that helpful either. Please provide a
description of what problem you're trying to fix or what improvement
you're trying to make so it's clear.

> ---
> arch/x86/mm/srat.c | 6 ------
> drivers/acpi/numa.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> index a837c95..78c67bd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/srat.c
> @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ acpi_numa_x2apic_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity *pa)
> int pxm, node;
> int apic_id;
>
> - if (srat_disabled())
> - return;
> if (pa->header.length < sizeof(struct acpi_srat_x2apic_cpu_affinity)) {
> bad_srat();
> return;
> @@ -100,8 +98,6 @@ acpi_numa_processor_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_cpu_affinity *pa)
> int pxm, node;
> int apic_id;
>
> - if (srat_disabled())
> - return;
> if (pa->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_cpu_affinity)) {
> bad_srat();
> return;
> @@ -148,8 +144,6 @@ acpi_numa_memory_affinity_init(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity *ma)
> u64 start, end;
> int node, pxm;
>
> - if (srat_disabled())
> - return -1;
> if (ma->header.length != sizeof(struct acpi_srat_mem_affinity)) {
> bad_srat();
> return -1;
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa.c b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> index cb31298..1f51222 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa.c
> @@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_srat(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> struct acpi_table_srat *srat;
> if (!table)
> return -EINVAL;
> + if (srat_disabled())
> + return -EACCES;
>
> srat = (struct acpi_table_srat *)table;
> acpi_srat_revision = srat->header.revision;

Nack, this isn't helpful since SRAT is only for x86 and other
architectures use this code. It would break the build on ia64 since it's
obviously not going to have a function called srat_disabled().

And -EACCES would not be the appropriate return value, this has nothing to
do with permissions.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-04 22:05    [W:0.071 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site