linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arch: s390: kernel: scan all present cpu forcely.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:22:55 +0800
From:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
CC:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	linux390@...ibm.com, cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arch: s390: kernel: scan all present cpu forcely.

On 06/27/2013 04:18 PM, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:43:02AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> > The architectures which may support 'hotpluggable', can scan all cpus
>> > during subsys_initcall().  the upper caller will skip the return value.
>> > 
>> > It also can initialize hotpluggable flag of all cpus in time, no matter
>> > whether any cpus fail or not.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
>> > ---
>> >  arch/s390/kernel/smp.c |    5 +++--
>> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c b/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
>> > index d386c4e..75a118f 100644
>> > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
>> > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/smp.c
>> > @@ -1064,8 +1064,9 @@ static int __init s390_smp_init(void)
>> >  #endif
>> >  	for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
>> >  		rc = smp_add_present_cpu(cpu);
>> > -		if (rc)
>> > -			return rc;
>> > +		if (unlikely(rc))
>> > +			printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: add cpu %d failed (%d)\n",
>> > +			       __func__, cpu, rc);
> I have no idea how the patch description is supposed to correlate with
> your patch.

Pardon, excuse me, my English is not quite well.

> However your patch doesn't make sense anyway.

At least it will continue to try to "add present cpu" as much as possible.

And also make sure of all 'hotpluggable' set.

> We have initcall_debug for .. initcall debugging, which your patch would
> break in addition, since this function would now return 0 instead of the
> return code.

I have searched all another architectures, most of them are only return
0 in subsys_initcall().

Do you means we do not like them ?


Thanks
-- 
Chen Gang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/