linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] AMD64 EDAC: Add support for >255 memory controllers

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: <CAPVoSvTz4=dabySPCjjR3yED_QnC_OwhJUZjQty6zYH4=FKVgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2012 09:18:26 +0100
From:	Torsten Kaiser <just.for.lkml@...glemail.com>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] AMD64 EDAC: Add support for >255 memory controllers

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:55 AM, Daniel J Blueman
<daniel@...ascale-asia.com> wrote:
> As the AMD64 last-level-cache ID is 16-bits and federated systems
> eg using Numascale's NumaConnect/NumaChip can have more than 255 memory
> controllers, use 16-bits to store the ID.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c |   18 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> index 18d404a..9920dfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c
> @@ -942,7 +942,7 @@ static u64 get_error_address(struct mce *m)
>                 struct amd64_pvt *pvt;
>                 u64 cc6_base, tmp_addr;
>                 u32 tmp;
> -               u8 mce_nid, intlv_en;
> +               u16 mce_nid, intlv_en;

Is the change of intlv_en to u16 intentional?
I assume its not, because...

>                 if ((addr & GENMASK(24, 47)) >> 24 != 0x00fdf7)
>                         return addr;
> @@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ static int f1x_match_to_this_node(struct amd64_pvt *pvt, unsigned range,
>         u8 channel;
>         bool high_range = false;
>
> -       u8 node_id    = dram_dst_node(pvt, range);
> +       u16 node_id   = dram_dst_node(pvt, range);
>         u8 intlv_en   = dram_intlv_en(pvt, range);

... here you keep it at u8.

>         u32 intlv_sel = dram_intlv_sel(pvt, range);
>
> @@ -2306,7 +2306,7 @@ out:
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> -static int toggle_ecc_err_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u8 nid, bool on)
> +static int toggle_ecc_err_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u16 nid, bool on)
>  {
>         cpumask_var_t cmask;
>         int cpu;
> @@ -2344,7 +2344,7 @@ static int toggle_ecc_err_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u8 nid, bool on)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static bool enable_ecc_error_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u8 nid,
> +static bool enable_ecc_error_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u16 nid,
>                                        struct pci_dev *F3)
>  {
>         bool ret = true;
> @@ -2396,7 +2396,7 @@ static bool enable_ecc_error_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u8 nid,
>         return ret;
>  }
>
> -static void restore_ecc_error_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u8 nid,
> +static void restore_ecc_error_reporting(struct ecc_settings *s, u16 nid,
>                                         struct pci_dev *F3)
>  {
>         u32 value, mask = 0x3;          /* UECC/CECC enable */
> @@ -2435,7 +2435,7 @@ static const char *ecc_msg =
>         "'ecc_enable_override'.\n"
>         " (Note that use of the override may cause unknown side effects.)\n";
>
> -static bool ecc_enabled(struct pci_dev *F3, u8 nid)
> +static bool ecc_enabled(struct pci_dev *F3, u16 nid)
>  {
>         u32 value;
>         u8 ecc_en = 0;
> @@ -2556,7 +2556,7 @@ static int amd64_init_one_instance(struct pci_dev *F2)
>         struct mem_ctl_info *mci = NULL;
>         struct edac_mc_layer layers[2];
>         int err = 0, ret;
> -       u8 nid = get_node_id(F2);
> +       u16 nid = get_node_id(F2);
>
>         ret = -ENOMEM;
>         pvt = kzalloc(sizeof(struct amd64_pvt), GFP_KERNEL);
> @@ -2647,7 +2647,7 @@ err_ret:
>  static int __devinit amd64_probe_one_instance(struct pci_dev *pdev,
>                                              const struct pci_device_id *mc_type)
>  {
> -       u8 nid = get_node_id(pdev);
> +       u16 nid = get_node_id(pdev);
>         struct pci_dev *F3 = node_to_amd_nb(nid)->misc;
>         struct ecc_settings *s;
>         int ret = 0;
> @@ -2697,7 +2697,7 @@ static void __devexit amd64_remove_one_instance(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  {
>         struct mem_ctl_info *mci;
>         struct amd64_pvt *pvt;
> -       u8 nid = get_node_id(pdev);
> +       u16 nid = get_node_id(pdev);
>         struct pci_dev *F3 = node_to_amd_nb(nid)->misc;
>         struct ecc_settings *s = ecc_stngs[nid];
>
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> 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/
--
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/