lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] acpi/processor: Fix the return value of acpi_processor_ids_walk()
From
Date
At 05/22/2018 09:47 AM, Dou Liyang wrote:
>
>
> At 05/19/2018 11:06 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Dou Liyang wrote:
>>
>>> ACPI driver should make sure all the processor IDs in their ACPI
>>> Namespace
>>> are unique for CPU hotplug. the driver performs a depth-first walk of
>>> the
>>> namespace tree and calls the acpi_processor_ids_walk().
>>>
>>> But, the acpi_processor_ids_walk() will return true if one processor is
>>> checked, that cause the walk break after walking pass the first
>>> processor.
>>>
>>> Repace the value with AE_OK which is the standard acpi_status value.
>>>
>>> Fixes 8c8cb30f49b8 ("acpi/processor: Implement DEVICE operator for
>>> processor enumeration")
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++--
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> index 449d86d39965..db5bdb59639c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> @@ -663,11 +663,11 @@ static acpi_status __init (acpi_handle handle,
>>>       }
>>>       processor_validated_ids_update(uid);
>>> -    return true;
>>> +    return AE_OK;
>>>   err:
>>>       acpi_handle_info(handle, "Invalid processor object\n");
>>> -    return false;
>>> +    return AE_OK;
>>
>> I'm not sure whether this is the right return value here. Rafael?
>>

+Cc Rafael's common used email address.

I am sorry, I created the cc list using ./script/get_maintainers.pl ...
and didn't check it.

Thanks,
dou

> Hi, Thomas, Rafael,
>
> Yes, I used AE_OK to make sure it can skip the invalid objects and
> continue to do the following other objects, I'm also not sure.
>
> For this bug, recently, I sent another patch to remove this check code
> away.
>
>    https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/17/320
>
> IMO, the duplicate IDs can be avoid by the other code
>
>    if (invalid_logical_cpuid(pr->id) || !cpu_present(pr->id)) ---- 1)
>
> As the mapping of cpu_id(pr->id) and processor_id is fixed, when
> hot-plugging a physical CPU, if its processor_id is duplicated with the
> present, the above condition 1) will be 0, and Linux will do not add
> this CPU.
>
> And, when every time the system starts, this code will be executed, it
> will waste more time with the increase in the number of CPU.
>
> So I prefer to remove this code.
>
> Thanks,
>     dou
>
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-23 03:34    [W:0.067 / U:1.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site