linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] dynamic logical partitioning infrastructure

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]

Message-ID: <4AAE8BDE.3090002@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:30:54 -0500
From:	Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>
CC:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dynamic logical partitioning infrastructure

Nathan Fontenot wrote:
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/kref.h>
> +#include <linux/notifier.h>
> +#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/prom.h>
> +#include <asm/machdep.h>
> +#include <asm/uaccess.h>
> +#include <asm/rtas.h>
> +#include <asm/pSeries_reconfig.h>
> +
> +#define CFG_CONN_WORK_SIZE    4096
> +static char workarea[CFG_CONN_WORK_SIZE];
> +spinlock_t workarea_lock;

This can be:

static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(workarea_lock);

Then you can get rid of the runtime initializer.

> +
> +int release_drc(u32 drc_index)
> +{
> +    int dr_status, rc;
> +
> +    rc = rtas_call(rtas_token("get-sensor-state"), 2, 2, &dr_status,
> +               DR_ENTITY_SENSE, drc_index);
> +    if (rc || dr_status != DR_ENTITY_PRESENT)
> +        return -1;
> +
> +    rc = rtas_set_indicator(ISOLATION_STATE, drc_index, ISOLATE);
> +    if (rc)
> +        return -1;
> +
> +    rc = rtas_set_indicator(ALLOCATION_STATE, drc_index, ALLOC_UNUSABLE);
> +    if (rc) {
> +        rtas_set_indicator(ISOLATION_STATE, drc_index, UNISOLATE);
> +        return -1;
> +    }

Is there a better return value here that might be more descriptive than -1?


> +
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int pseries_dlpar_init(void)
> +{
> +    spin_lock_init(&workarea_lock);
> +
> +    if (!machine_is(pseries))
> +        return 0;

What's the point of this if check if you return 0 either way?

> +
> +    return 0;
> +}
> +__initcall(pseries_dlpar_init);


> Index: powerpc/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/reconfig.c
> ===================================================================
> --- powerpc.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/reconfig.c    2009-09-11
> 12:43:39.000000000 -0500
> +++ powerpc/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/reconfig.c    2009-09-11
> 12:51:52.000000000 -0500
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
>     return parent;
> }
> 
> -static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(pSeries_reconfig_chain);
> +struct blocking_notifier_head pSeries_reconfig_chain =
> BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_INIT(pSeries_reconfig_chain);

Can't this just be?

BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(pSeries_reconfig_chain);

-- 
Brian King
Linux on Power Virtualization
IBM Linux Technology Center



--
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/