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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20130627081845.GA3824@osiris>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:18:45 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc:	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 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.
However your patch doesn't make sense anyway.
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.

--
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/