linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] PCI/DPC: Unify and plumb error handling into DPC

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: <3f4e3cf0c9dee97894948b5cc9451d7e@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Jan 2018 14:33:12 +0530
From:   poza@...eaurora.org
To:     Sinan Kaya <okaya@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dongdong Liu <liudongdong3@...wei.com>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>, Wei Zhang <wzhang@...com>,
        Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] PCI/DPC: Unify and plumb error handling into DPC

On 2018-01-19 10:14, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 1/18/2018 11:23 PM, poza@...eaurora.org wrote:
>> On 2018-01-18 23:33, Sinan Kaya wrote:
>>> On 1/18/2018 1:00 PM, poza@...eaurora.org wrote:
>>>>> I think you would put into include/linux/pci.h only if there is an 
>>>>> external
>>>>> use of constant outside of drivers/pci directory. Otherwise, you 
>>>>> should keep
>>>>> the setting inside one of the header files in drivers/pci 
>>>>> directory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't see any other subsystem caring about DPC_FATAL definition.
>>>> 
>>>> ok so you are suggesting to move only DPC_FATAL ? so then AER can 
>>>> stay where it is.
>>> 
>>> Now that both AER and DPC handling is getting unified, I think it 
>>> makes sense to
>>> keep all error codes (AER+DPC) together in drivers/pci/pci.h rather 
>>> than having
>>> them split in aer.h and dpc.h.
>>> 
>>> Otherwise, how would we avoid having a new error type defined with 
>>> the
>>> existing values.
>> 
>> I agree, its is just that drivers/acpi/apet/ghes.c has to do
>> #include ../../pci/pci.h
> 
> That's bad. I was just thinking about the DPC error code only. I didn't 
> realize
> AER error codes are being referenced from ghes.c.
> 
>> 
>> but thats okay I think.  let me move error codes to drivers/pci/pci.h.
> 
> It is better if error codes move to include/linux/pci.h and keep them 
> together.
> 

The problem with moving them to include/linux/pci.h, it falls into 
global scope, besides
they have to be renamed to/prefixed with PCI_ERR_xxx

the use of AER_FATAL, DPC_FATAL etc.. is very limited in entire linux. 
and likely to be so.
I think moving them to drivers/pci/pci.h would be more restricted/local

let me make patch-set based on that, and see how it looks like. we can 
arrive at some consensus then.

>> 
>> Regards,
>> Oza.
>>