Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jun 2021 16:38:08 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] powerpc/papr_scm: Properly handle UUID types and API |
| |
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:05:31PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On 4/16/21 2:39 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 01:28:21PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > On 4/15/21 7:16 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > Parse to and export from UUID own type, before dereferencing. > > > > This also fixes wrong comment (Little Endian UUID is something else) > > > > and should fix Sparse warnings about assigning strict types to POD. > > > > > > > > Fixes: 43001c52b603 ("powerpc/papr_scm: Use ibm,unit-guid as the iset cookie") > > > > Fixes: 259a948c4ba1 ("powerpc/pseries/scm: Use a specific endian format for storing uuid from the device tree") > > > > Cc: Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com> > > > > Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > > > --- > > > > Not tested > > > > arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c > > > > index ae6f5d80d5ce..4366e1902890 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/papr_scm.c > > > > @@ -1085,8 +1085,9 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > u32 drc_index, metadata_size; > > > > u64 blocks, block_size; > > > > struct papr_scm_priv *p; > > > > + u8 uuid_raw[UUID_SIZE]; > > > > const char *uuid_str; > > > > - u64 uuid[2]; > > > > + uuid_t uuid; > > > > int rc; > > > > /* check we have all the required DT properties */ > > > > @@ -1129,16 +1130,18 @@ static int papr_scm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > p->hcall_flush_required = of_property_read_bool(dn, "ibm,hcall-flush-required"); > > > > /* We just need to ensure that set cookies are unique across */ > > > > - uuid_parse(uuid_str, (uuid_t *) uuid); > > > > + uuid_parse(uuid_str, &uuid); > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * cookie1 and cookie2 are not really little endian > > > > - * we store a little endian representation of the > > > > + * we store a raw buffer representation of the > > > > * uuid str so that we can compare this with the label > > > > * area cookie irrespective of the endian config with which > > > > * the kernel is built. > > > > */ > > > > - p->nd_set.cookie1 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[0]); > > > > - p->nd_set.cookie2 = cpu_to_le64(uuid[1]); > > > > + export_uuid(uuid_raw, &uuid); > > > > + p->nd_set.cookie1 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[0]); > > > > + p->nd_set.cookie2 = get_unaligned_le64(&uuid_raw[8]); > > > > > > ok that does the equivalent of cpu_to_le64 there. So we are good. But the > > > comment update is missing the details why we did that get_unaligned_le64. > > > Maybe raw buffer representation is the correct term? > > > Should we add an example in the comment. ie, > > > > > /* > > > * Historically we stored the cookie in the below format. > > > for a uuid str 72511b67-0b3b-42fd-8d1d-5be3cae8bcaa > > > cookie1 was 0xfd423b0b671b5172 cookie2 was 0xaabce8cae35b1d8d > > > */ > > > > I'm fine with the comment. At least it will shed a light on the byte ordering > > we are expecting. > > > > Will you be sending an update? Also it will be good to list the sparse > warning in the commit message?
I'll send an update but I rephrase to remove mention of Sparse. I have no Sparse build for this architecture.
If you have one, try to build with `make W=1 C=1 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ ...` which will enable warnings about restricted types assignment.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |