linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5552F198.4030304@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 13 May 2015 14:39:20 +0800
From:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
CC:	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] ACPI / processor: Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid()

On 2015年05月12日 00:35, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 02:14:01PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> On 2015???05???05??? 19:25, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/05/15 03:46, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> Introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() to identify cpu with invalid
>>>> physical ID, then used it as replacement of the direct comparisons
>>>> with PHYS_CPUID_INVALID.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    drivers/acpi/processor_core.c | 4 ++--
>>>>    include/linux/acpi.h          | 5 +++++
>>>>    3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>>> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>>> index 62c846b..92a5f73 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
>>>> index 913b49f..cc82ff3 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
>>>> @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ static inline bool invalid_logical_cpuid(u32 cpuid)
>>>>        return (int)cpuid < 0;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> +static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    return (int)phys_id < 0;
>>>
>>> Should this be phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID ? else I don't see why we
>>> need to even define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID
>>
>> I'm OK with this. For now, CPU phys_id will be valid value or
>> PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in all cases for ACPI processor driver, but
>> I want ask Rafael's opinion on this, is it OK to you too, Rafael?
>
> Is your worry related to functions returning error values
> other than PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (when they are expected to return a
> physical id) ?

Yes.

> Is there any in the current kernel ?

No such returns as far as I know.

>
> static inline bool invalid_phys_cpuid(phys_cpuid_t phys_id)
> {
> 	return phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID;
> }
>
> This should do, and if we need more mapping functions that are supposed
> to return physical ids they should return PHYS_CPUID_INVALID on failure.

OK, I will send a update version for this patch only.

Thanks
Hanjun
--
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/