Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2018 20:07:33 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Raise maximum number of memory controllers |
| |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 10:50:23AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: > There are way too many places where we use the identifier "bus" > in the edac core and drivers. But I'm not sure that we need a > static array mc_bus[EDAC_MAX_MCS].
That, of course, is another way of looking at it which I didn't think of.
> Why can't we: > > > - mci->bus = &mc_bus[mci->mc_idx]; > + mci->bus = kmalloc(sizeof *(mci->bus), GFP_KERNEL); > > and then figure out where to kfree(mci->bus) on driver removal?
AFAICT, in _edac_mc_free(). We free there mci itself so kfree(mci->bus) can happen directly before it.
> Do we every do arithmetic on different mci->bus pointers that > assume they are all part of a single array?
AFAICT, we use that thing for the bus_reg/unreg functions and we hand it back'n'forth in edac_mc_sysfs.c, see
$ git grep -E "mci.*bus" drivers/edac/ drivers/edac/edac_mc.c:763: mci->bus = &mc_bus[mci->mc_idx]; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:408: csrow->dev.bus = mci->bus; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:639: dimm->dev.bus = mci->bus; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:928: mci->bus->name = name; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:930: edac_dbg(0, "creating bus %s\n", mci->bus->name); drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:932: err = bus_register(mci->bus); drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:943: mci->dev.bus = mci->bus; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:1002: bus_unregister(mci->bus); drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:1035: struct bus_type *bus = mci->bus; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:1036: const char *name = mci->bus->name; drivers/edac/edac_mc_sysfs.c:1071: mci_pdev->bus = edac_get_sysfs_subsys(); drivers/edac/i5100_edac.c:967: priv->debugfs = edac_debugfs_create_dir_at(mci->bus->name, i5100_debugfs); drivers/edac/i7core_edac.c:1170: pvt->addrmatch_dev->bus = mci->dev.bus; drivers/edac/i7core_edac.c:1191: pvt->chancounts_dev->bus = mci->dev.bus;
HOWEVER, look at
88d84ac97378 ("EDAC: Fix lockdep splat")
Now I remember. I did that for lockdep because it wants statically allocated memory. I'll try to think of something tomorrow.
Thx.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
| |